Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — PENSIONS AND NATIONAL INSURANCE

Unemployment Benefit

Mr. Shepherd: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance if she will give an estimate of the number of persons drawing unemployment benefit at the latest available date classified as unemployable; and how many professional persons retiring before the age at which they become entitled to a state retirement pension are signing on at employment exchanges but not genuinely seeking work.

The Minister of Pensions and National Insurance (Miss Margaret Herbison): The answer to the first part of the Question is that no one who is receiving unemployment benefit is classified as unemployable. On the second part of the Question, no such statistics are available.

Mr. Shepherd: But does not the right hon. Lady realise that, on the second part of the Question, a great deal of concern is caused particularly in areas where large numbers of people are discharged by large organisations at a relatively early age who go on drawing unemployment benefit although there is little prospect of them being employed? Will she ask her advisers to look at this problem, because obviously it will be a growing one?

Miss Herbison: I agree very much with what the hon. Gentleman has said. There is no doubt that many people are worried about this matter. What I hope to say on the Second Reading of the National Insurance Bill today will, perhaps, relieve the hon. Gentleman's mind a little.

National Assistance (Mortgage Repayments)

Mr. Rose: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance whether she will take action to ensure that the rules relating to payment of rent are extended to mortgage repayments in the case of deserted wives seeking National Assistance.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance (Mr. Norman Pentland): The National Assistance rent rule which is prescribed in Regulations empowers the National Assistance Board to provide for mortgage interest but not for repayments


of capital. The rule has been in existence since 1948 and it would be wrong to treat repayments of capital in the same way as mortgage interest. The Board has discretionary powers, however, which it can use where necessary to prevent hardship where a recipient of national assistance has to continue making refunds of mortgage capital.

Mr. Rose: Is my hon. Friend aware of the plight of many deserted wives whose husbands refuse to make repayments on the mortgage and who also have to pay rates? Will he try to find some way of helping people in this unfortunate position, perhaps by instructing local offices of the National Assistance Board to be more generous in their provision?

Mr. Pentland: I appreciate my hon. Friend's concern in this matter. I have been in correspondence with him about it. In addition to cases of deserted wives, we have widows, the sick, and so forth, who are also concerned. But, as I pointed out, in exceptional cases the Board tries to relieve hardship for these people. My hon. Friend's supplementary question will be drawn to the Board's attention.

Industrial Injury Claims

Mr. Rose: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance how many claims were allowed in 1965 for industrial injuries insurance in respect of prescribed diseases, and how many were rejected.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance (Mr. Harold Davies): I regret that the precise information requested is not available, but it is estimated that there were in the latest periods of twelve months for which we have figures for prescribed diseases, about 28,000 awards of injury benefit, some 2,000 initial awards of disablement pension, including about 1,500 for pneumoconiosis, and about 3,000 initial awards of disablement gratuity. In addition, there were about 750 awards of death benefit, of which about 700 were in respect of pneumoconiosis.

Mr. Rose: Is my hon. Friend aware that a great deal of hardship is being caused to those people who suffer from diseases which neither are prescribed nor

come about as a result of an accident? Could not something be done to tighten up the law to stop this loophole whereby people in this position are deprived of benefit so that all those suffering from illness caused by employment are entitled to benefit?

Mr. Davies: I assure my hon. Friend that, on both sides of the House, many of us have been aware of this problem for many years. I hope, however, that he will accept from me that we are doing our utmost, in great difficulties, to try to get a complete answer to the question of prescribed diseases. It will take time; I assure my hon. Friend that we are not wasting time.

Mr. Boardman: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance in what percentage of cases going before Industrial Injuries Tribunals where specialist evidence is given on behalf and in support of the appellant the appeals are turned down.

Mr. Harold Davies: I regret that this information is not available.

Mr. Boardman: Is my hon. Friend aware that medical support for these appeals is of very little account and that as a consequence consultants and trade union officials alike are becoming quite cynical about this? Would he not agree that when there is a conflict of opinion between eminent medical men the appellant should be given the benefit of the doubt?

Mr. Davies: I hope my hon. Friend does not assume from the brevity of my Answer that I intended to be cynical. The fact is that the figures asked for would be of little significance because consultants are employed on both sides.

Pensions (Value)

Mr. Ridsdale: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance what is the value of the pension in real terms at the latest date, compared with May 1963, after the increase in pensions had been made.

Mr. Pentland: At current prices the present retirement pension rates of 80s. (single) and 130s. (for a couple) are worth 5s. l0d. and 10s. 4d. more, respectively, than the 67s. 6d. and 109s. rates introduced in May 1963.

Mr. Ridsdale: Does this figure contain an allowance for the 50 per cent. increase in water rates which some old-age pensioners are having to bear as a result of the last Budget? Would the hon. Gentleman please say how he arrived at these figures?

Mr. Pentland: This figure covers everything in the index of retail prices. Despite an increase in prices, the purchasing power of the retirement pension today is at a higher level than it was at any time during the 13 years of Tory rule.

Civilian Disabled Persons

Dame Joan Vickers: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance what consideration is being given to the provision of a State pension for civilian disabled persons other than those entitled to industrial injury benefit.

Mr. Pentland: I would refer the hon. Lady to the replies I gave to the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir J. Eden) on 31st January.

Dame Joan Vickers: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that it would be much better to give these people a definite pension, particularly, for instance, victims of polio, on similar lines to what is done for the blind rather than that they should have to go to National Assistance for their weekly allowances?

Mr. Pentland: I am aware of the hon. Lady's concern in these matters, and she will, I know, appreciate that my right hon. Friends the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and the Minister have personally assured the bodies interested in this problem that the difficulties of the chronic sick and the disabled will be fully examined and considered in our review of social security provisions.

Mr. Wood: Can the hon. Gentleman say exactly what research into numbers and extent of disability, particularly so far as the problem applies to old people, is going on in his right hon. Friend's Department or the Department of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster?

Mr. Pentland: All this is being considered in the investigations which are now taking place in the social security review.

Retirement Half-pay and Income Guarantee

Mr. Tiley: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance why the plans for half-pay on retirement and a minimum income guarantee have now been postponed.

Miss Herbison: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Bromley (Mr. Hunt) on 22nd November, and to the statement which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer made to the House on 27th July last.

Mr. Tiley: In view of the fact that I do not know what that Answer was, may I ask the right hon. Lady whether it would not be fairer to make a statement about the delay, because during the General Election the whole country was advised that these two schemes were costed and ready to be implemented? More than that, in view of the fact that a year ago, when hon. Members opposite filibustered the Private Member's Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave)—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This supplementary question is getting too long.

Miss Herbison: What a pity it is that if the hon. Member is so interested in these matters he did not look up the reply which was given on the very same question and that he did not read my right hon. Friend's statement. As to the previous Bill, nothing that has been said by anyone on his own Front Bench shows that they will be giving help indiscriminately to people in the future.

Mr. Manuel: In connection with the provision of a State pension for civilian disabled persons, would not my right hon. Friend agree that a first step which would afford relief would be if she could remove the charges on surgical boots, stockings and other items?

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is a supplementary question on the earlier Question.

Earnings Rule

Mr. Ridsdale: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance whether she will now make further relaxations in


the earnings rule, in view of the increase in the cost of living.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance why the definition of net earnings which may be disregarded for the purpose of the operation of the earnings rule allows the deduction of Income Tax payable under the Pay-As-You-Earn scheme but not Income Tax payable under Cases I and II of Schedule D; and whether she will introduce legislation to rectify this anomaly.

Miss Herbison: I would ask the hon. Gentleman to await my speech a little later this afternoon, when I hope to say something relevant to this matter.

Mr. Ridsdale: Does the Minister realise that she gave a very ambiguous statement in her recent television broadcast when it appeared that she had abolished the earnings rule altogether? When, indeed, will the Minister abolish the earnings rule, as she promised at the last election?

Miss Herbison: What the hon. Member has said in the last part of his supplementary question is quite untrue. No statement was made before last election that the earnings rule would be abolished for pensioners. I am sorry that the hon. Member was not able to listen clearly to what I said in the broadcast concerning widows.

Mr. Jenkin: Would not the right hon. Lady recognise that the anomaly to which Question No. 10 draws attention is totally unjustifiable and that there can be no logic in differentiating between pensioners by reference to the method by which tax is deducted from their pay on their other earnings?

Miss Herbison: Perhaps the hon. Member will be present when I deal with the Second Reading of the National Insurance Bill later this afternoon.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF HEALTH

Condemned Foodstuffs, Wellington (Hadley)

Mr. William Yates: asked the Minister of Health the total quantity and the total value of the foodstuffs which were condemned by his inspectors as a result

of floodwater at the Parade, Hadley, Wellington, Shropshire.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Charles Loughlin): None, Sir. Under the Food and Drugs Act, 1955, food inspection is the responsibility of local authorities and condemnation, if called for, is the function of a justice of the peace. I am informed that in this instance action to condemn was unnecessary. I am sending the hon. Member a list of goods voluntarily surrendered.

Mr. Yates: Is the Minister aware that his Department of State in supervising matters of health at local government level and above is very much lacking and that many people would appreciate his Department having far more powers in dealing with matters like this?

Mr. Loughlin: I should not like to enter into a discussion at this stage as to the correctness or otherwise of our powers. In the incident in question, however, as the hon. Member knows, the foodstuff was voluntarily surrendered by the traders and there does not appear to me to have been the slightest difficulty.

National Health Service Superannuation Scheme

Mr. John Hall: asked the Minister of Health when the 1962 report on the valuation of the National Health Service Superannuation Scheme will be published.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Kenneth Robinson): Tomorrow, when copies will be placed in the Library.

Infant Mortality

Miss Quennell: asked the Minister of Health whether he still expects the Registrar General's special study into the regional differences in infant mortality to be published by mid-1966.

Mr. Loughlin: Yes, Sir.

Miss Quennell: Can the hon. Gentleman amplify his Answer a little more? Is the report likely to be available in the earlier part of the summer, or in the later part?

Mr. Loughlin: I do not think that one can amplify the Answer to this Question. I was merely asked whether I "still


expect". We do expect and hope that the report will be published in mid-1966. We hope to get it as soon as possible.

Coloured Population

Sir D. Renton: asked the Minister of Health the present estimated size of the coloured population of Great Britain, and what it is expected to be in 1970 and 1980, respectively, if no further net increase in immigration takes place.

Mr. Loughlin: I regret that it is not possible to make these estimates.

Sir D. Renton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the previous Home Secretary and his predecessors made such estimates and that it is of public interest to know what the position is? Why has he decided to give no answer to this Question, more especially as it was put in the first place not to the Minister of Health but to the Home Secretary?

Mr. Loughlin: The Question asks whether we can estimate the size of the coloured population. Any examination of the implications of that question will clearly indicate that the only possible basis on which one could establish any analysis through census would be the basis of the country in which people were born. Consequently, it seems fairly obvious to me that a lot of children may well be born in other countries to white parents when the father is serving in the Forces or who are abroad for other reasons. Conversely a similar problem arises concerning children who are born of coloured people in this country and are registered in Great Britain. It is almost impossible to get this information.

Mr. John Hall: Is the Minister aware that his answer was so complicated that it was very difficult to follow? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, no."] Is it not absolutely true that his predecessor did volunteer information of this kind, and is it not also true that it is essential for a study of the problems which arise out of immigration to have some information of this kind?

Mr. Loughlin: No. I think the hon. Gentleman must recognise that there is an essential difference between making an estimate of the immigrants and making an estimate of coloured population. The migration figure will obviously include people who are white or pink,

as the case may be, and if the hon. Gentleman wants information in respect of coloured people—which I would not want anyway—but if he does want it, then I say to him that it is virtually impossible to have it.

Drink-Coolers

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: asked the Minister of Health if he will take steps to control the import of drink-coolers filled, with water from abroad, such as pink elephants, so as to reduce the chances of contamination.

Mr. Loughlin: My right hon. Friend has no powers to do so, but I understand that the Hong Kong Government have asked manufacturers and exporters temporarily to suspend production and export. My right hon. Friend is considering with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary whether any further action is required.

Mr. Lloyd: Is it not a fact that the United States have banned the importation of these pink elephants, and would it not be safer to do the same?

Mr. Loughlin: I do not know whether we in this House have any jurisdiction over the acts of the United States of America. We are concerned with the position in this country, and my right hon. Friends are considering what action can be taken.

Mr. Wilkins: Forgetting the fundamental reasons for seeing pink elephants, may I ask my hon. Friend whether a special acknowledgment or letter of thanks has been sent to the Medical Officer of Health for the city of Bristol who first brought this danger to the notice of his Department and the country?

Mr. Loughlin: Frankly, I do not know whether a letter of thanks has been sent to the Medical Officer of Health for Bristol, but I take this opportunity of paying tribute to him now.

Mr. Wood: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether, in the interests of safety, he would support the quickest possible turning of these pink elephants into white elephants?

Mr. Manuel: Would my hon. Friend treat this question seriously? Does he realise that far too many pink elephants are seen in this country already?

Dental Technicians

Mr. F. Noel-Baker: asked the Minister of Health what study he has made of the structure of prices of dentures and prosthetic work and of wages of dental technicians; and if he will take steps to improve conditions in dental laboratories.

Mr. K. Robinson: I have no responsibility for the prices charged by commercial dental laboratories for dentures and other prosthetic work or for the wages of dental technicians employed by them. Wages are negotiated through the appropriate joint negotiating body. As regards the last part of the Question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour on 12th July, 1965, to the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price).

Mr Noel-Baker: Even if my right hon. Friend has no technical responsibility, is not he aware that there is a great deal of feeling, and will he discuss with his right hon. Friend what can be done about it?

Mr. Robinson: If there is feeling, I suggest that my hon. Friend puts down a Question to my right hon. Friend.

Scientology

Lord Balniel: asked the Minister of Health whether he will initiate an inquiry into the scope and practice in this country of so-called Scientology, and the practice of psychology for fee or reward by persons who have no medical or psychological qualifications.

Mr. K. Robinson: No, Sir.

Lord Balniel: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the commercial practice of psychology by unqualified persons could be very dangerous indeed for certain mentally disordered people? In view of the scathing criticism by an official board of inquiry in Australia into the so-called practice of Scientology, surely the right hon. Gentleman considers that it is in the public interest to hold a similar type of inquiry in this country?

Mr. Robinson: I am prepared to consider any demand for an inquiry, but I have not had one yet. I am aware

that extravagant claims are made on behalf of Scientology, which are not generally accepted, and for my part I would advise anyone who is considering a course of this kind to go to his doctor first.

Mr. Snow: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there will be some support among some Members on this side of the House for this general proposition, that an examination of advertisements in some free-thinking journals might elucidate the general picture for him in the sense that there are people who attract a large number of clients by almost fraudulent claims to have a medical background?

Mr. Robinson: As my hon. Friend probably knows, the law does not prohibit anyone from practising medicine or surgery, with one or two limited exceptions. Unless he is registered as a doctor, no one may call himself a doctor, or imply that he is registered. If anybody has evidence that this society—or the members of it—is doing that, I hope that he will communicate with me.

Cervical Cancer (Tests)

Mr. Wainwright: asked the Minister of Health how many women have had the protective cervical test during each of the past three years; and how many are on the waiting list.

Mr. K. Robinson: I regret that the information is not available. From December, 1964, to June, 1965, the number of tests per month rose from 39,000 to nearly 51,000, an annual rate of over 600,000. The returns for December, 1965, are not yet complete.

Mr. Wainwright: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply, but does not he realise that there is strong feeling in the country, especially among women, that during the past 14 years not enough has been done by Governments in diagnosing cervical cancer? Does not my right hon. Friend also realise that unless more is done on this issue there will be great feeling against this Government, even though my right hon. Friend has done better than previous Governments did? Will my right hon. Friend make certain that he is judged by deeds and not by words?

Mr. Robinson: We may have been slow in starting this, but I think that progress during the last couple of years has been very considerable. In that part of my hon. Friend's constituency which is covered by the Doncaster Hospital Management Committee, a full service is already available, and in that part covered by Rotherham and Mexborough a full service will be available at the end of this year, so my hon. Friend is perhaps rather fortunately situated.

Mr. Kershaw: Is the Minister aware that, despite the progress which has been made, there is still considerable anxiety about this matter in the Western Region? Will he do what he can to speed things up?

Mr. Robinson: I am always encouraging regional boards to speed up this provision. I am told that by the end of this year routine services should be readily available for well over half the population at risk.

Mr. Braine: As the main difficulty is the continuing shortage of technicians, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman's attention has been drawn to the remarkable Brighton cancer project where somewhat unconventional methods of recruiting the necessary bodies have been highly successful and have had the full support of the local medical profession and the hospital services? Will the Minister look into that and see whether that idea can be adopted elsewhere?

Mr. Robinson: I am aware of it, and I shall see whether it is possible to extend it, but we feel that cytology ought to be practised by those who are doing pathology in the ordinary way rather than that people should do nothing but cytology all the time.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOSPITALS

Nurses (Overtime)

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: asked the Minister of Health what would be the estimated cost of making overtime payments to state registered nurses employed in the hospital service.

Mr. K. Robinson: The cost would depend on the circumstances.

Mr. Lewis: The Minister of Health is obviously not doing very well this afternoon in trying to provide figures.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Lewis: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, in view of the discussions which have taken place on this matter, whether he discussed it with the professional organisations concerned? Will he bear in mind that a lot of part-timers are paid on an hourly basis, which is having an effect on permanent nursing staff, who feel they are being penalised?

Mr. Robinson: We always try to give intelligent answers to intelligent questions. The fact is that a very large number of factors are involved, all of which are variable, in trying to reach an estimate—the circumstances in which overtime rates are payable, the rates for overtime, the grades in which it is payable, the policy adopted by individual hospitals. In reply to the second part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, no claim for overtime payment has yet been received from either side of the Nurses and Midwives Whitley Council.

Mr. William Hamilton: Can my right hon. Friend say at this juncture whether he accepts the principle of overtime payments and whether he is keeping his mind very much open on the point?

Mr. Robinson: My mind is always open.

Dame Irene Ward: As his mind is always open, will the right hon. Gentleman initiate discussions with the professional organisations representing nurses and midwives? Would he not agree that that would be very helpful to us in that we should then know in what direction we are going?

Mr. Robinson: If a claim is officially submitted we can then consider the best course of action to take.

Hospital Building

Mr. Dean: asked the Minister of Health how much of the money allocated to hospital building for the present financial year will be spent on new hospitals and major reconstruction schemes, and how much on smaller improvement schemes.

Mr. K. Robinson: I would refer the hon. Member to Appendix IV to the published Estimate for the Hospital Services.

Mr. Dean: Is the Minister satisfied that a sufficiently high proportion of the resources available for hospital building is going into comparatively moderate expenditure on schemes which can speedily be done and which can make an enormous difference to the working of existing hospitals?

Mr. Robinson: Yes I think this is important, and I have no reason whatever to believe that the amounts spent on large and small works, respectively, are in any way out of balance. Certainly I have called the attention of hospital boards to this matter.

Mr. Pavitt: Would my right hon. Friend bear in mind, in his revision, that if new hospitals are to be built there may have to be a quite ruthless look at some small, uneconomic units of hospital services, and will he issue directions to local hospital boards accordingly?

Mr. Robinson: We do not normally issue directions to hospital boards, but I will certainly bear my hon. Friend's point in mind.

Basildon Hospital

Mr. Gardner: asked the Minister of Health what steps he is taking to speed up the work on the building of Basildon Hospital.

Mr. Loughlin: The essential preparatory work is proceeding with all possible speed.

Mr. Gardner: Is the Minister aware that the plans for this hospital are now completed, the site is ready and there is nothing, except the absence of the Minister's decision, to excuse further delay in starting work on the ground?

Mr. Loughlin: I am not so sure that it is wholly the Minister's decision, but I can assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that we want to go ahead with this as quickly as possible. The officers of the Department are in touch with the regional hospital board, and have been at all stages; but, as I say, we are trying to proceed with all speed.

St. Andrew's Hospital, Billericay

Mr. Gardner: asked the Minister of Health what steps are being taken to

augment the maternity services available at St. Andrew's Hospital, Billericay.

Mr. Loughlin: It is not practicable to do so at this hospital, but a new unit at Orsett will open shortly, and other units being planned at other existing hospitals and at the new hospital at Basildon will materially augment the service for the area.

Mr. Gardner: Is it not a fact that these maternity services provided in this area are grossly over-burdened and that the key to the problem is the building of a new hospital at Basildon? Is not this a reason why building should begin as soon as possible?

Mr. Loughlin: We are agreed that the maternity services are not all that we would desire them to be, but we think that it should be possible to start work on the new Basildon hospital, the first phase of which will contain a maternity unit, in 1967. In the meantime we are doing what we can to provide alternative services.

Junior Hospital Medical Staff

Mr. Will Griffiths: asked the Minister of Health (1) whether he is aware of the widespread dissatisfaction being expressed by junior hospital medical staff about the terms and conditions of their employment; and what action he proposes to take to improve their situation;
(2) whether he is satisfied with the amenities and accommodation available to junior medical staff employed at the Manchester Royal Infirmary; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Alfred Morris: asked the Minister of Health (1) if he is satisfied with the conditions of work and amenities available to junior medical staff at Wythenshawe Hospital, Manchester; and if he will make a statement;
(2) what consideration he is giving to improving the terms and conditions of employment of junior hospital medical staff; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Gregory: asked the Minister of Health (1) if he is satisfied with the conditions of work, amenities and accommodation available for junior medical staffs employed at Stockport
Infirmary, and Stepping Hill Hospital, Stockport; and if he will make a statement;
(2) what action he proposes to take to improve the conditions of work and terms of employment of junior medical staff engaged by hospitals within the Manchester Regional Board area; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Orme: asked the Minister of Health (1) if he is aware of the inadequate pay and conditions of the junior hospital doctors at the Salford Royal Infirmary; and if he will take steps to improve them; 
(2) if he will make an interim statement regarding the proposals for increases for the junior hospital medical staff.

Mr. K. Robinson: I am aware that the living and working conditions of junior hospital medical staff at many hospitals in the Manchester Region are less than satisfactory and, in particular, that much of the residential accommodation is below the standards in Building Note No. 24, which relates to new hospital buildings. Both the regional hospital board and the board of governors are aware of the position and within the resources available to them are trying to remedy it, but in some cases the only permanently satisfactory solution is new building. On remuneration, I would refer my hon. Friends to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt) on 15th November, 1965. Conditions of service are a matter for the Medical and (Hospital) Dental Whitley Council.

Mr. Griffiths: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this is a problem which grows increasingly urgent and that there is urgent need to find a solution to it? Is he aware that the consequences of the situation are that posts in Manchester hospitals remain unfilled, posts which until very recently, as, for instance, in orthopaedics, were competitive, lots of people wanting the job? Is he further aware that junior doctors are increasingly being tempted away—to emigrate to Canada and the United States—and also that the supply of Commonwealth doctors is drying up? There is also widespread resentment about deductions from their somewhat unsatisfactory salary scale for accommodation. Every effort should be

made to bring up the standards of their accommodation in hospitals. It is a matter of urgency.

Mr. Robinson: I would not accept that the supply of doctors from the Commonwealth is drying up. I have no evidence of that at the moment. I accept that there is a position here which needs improving, but I would point out to my hon. Friend that in Manchester Royal Infirmary, the particular hospital to which he refers, residential accommodation is better than in many other hospitals in the region, although I agree there is need for married accommodation.

Mr. Gregory: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the conditions in the two Stockport hospitals are among the worst in the Manchester Region? Would he take a special interest in this matter and see what can be done to help the junior staffs at both these hospitals?

Mr. Robinson: I agree that the provision generally is of poor quality in Stockport, although I am told that two houses have been bought since 1960 in order to supplement this provision.

Mr. Orme: Would my right hon. Friend look at the position of the Salford Royal Infirmary and particularly the accommodation which is provided for doctors there, which is very inadequate and very unsatisfactory? Perhaps he would examine that against the boarding fees and see whether something urgent could be done.

Mr. Robinson: My hon. Friend did not ask about accommodation at this hospital, but if he likes to put down a Question about that I will do my best to answer it. On remuneration and boarding charges, these are matters for the independent review body in the first instance.

Mr. Orme: On a point of order. If my right hon. Friend looks at my Question he will see that it mentions "conditions". They include accommodation.

Mr. Speaker: That may be a point for the Minister but it is not a point of order for the Chair.

Mr. van Straubenzee: As at least one of these Questions goes wider than those hospitals which so far have immediately


been referred to, and without necessarily accepting all the representations which the Minister has so far received from some of those representing junior staff, may I ask him whether he is satisfied with the present machinery for the representation of their views?

Mr. Robinson: I am satisfied that the Review Body has been made fully aware of the feelings of junior hospital doctors.

Fulbourn Hospital

Mr. Pym: asked the Minister of Health when he intends to authorise the building alterations to the central block of Fulbourn Hospital which he postponed last year.

Mr. Loughlin: The scheme was postponed by the regional hospital board because it could not be contained within their capital allocation. I would ask the hon. Member to await the result of the current review of the hospital plan.

Mr. Pym: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware of the greatly improved results that have been achieved at this hospital over the years and of the enthusiasm that there is for making further progress, and may I ask him why this particular project has suffered such a long postponement?

Mr. Loughlin: The reason for the postponement was obviously that the regional hospital board had to effect its priorities. The hon. Gentleman knows that this scheme is very well worth while and very necessary but is one that cannot possibly have the highest possible priority in the regional hospital board's overall programme. I feel sure that the regional hospital board will be getting on with the job as soon as it can.

Maternity Beds, Yarmouth and Lowestoft

Mr. Prior: asked the Minister of Health why the new maternity unit at Northgate, Yarmouth, has been delayed.

Mr. K. Robinson: This scheme has not been delayed and building work is expected, as planned, to begin later this year.

Mr. Prior: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that that is contrary to local information, in that the regional hospital board was told to go ahead with a pre-

fabricated building, which went out to tender, that it received tenders and was then told by the Ministry that it could not go ahead?

Mr. Robinson: There were possible delays and difficulties, we felt, which could have arisen if the building method originally proposed had been adopted, and it has now been decided to build conventionally. But I am very glad to have this opportunity of setting right the local misunderstanding of this matter.

Mr. Prior: asked the Minister of Health what action he proposes to take to provide more maternity beds at Lowestoft.

Mr. K. Robinson: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer my hon. Friend gave him on 19th July last.

Mr. Prior: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that answer gave no satisfaction at all in my constituency, that this is a very serious problem, and that the delay in the building of the new maternity ward at Great Yarmouth is giving rise to a great deal of concern in my constituency? The Prime Minister himself, when Leader of the Opposition, went on record as saying that he would do everything in his power to speed up maternity accommodation. Why has he not done so?

Mr. Robinson: I understood that the hon. Gentleman accepted that the right solution was to build at Great Yarmouth, and I assure him that the building of the new unit there is expected to start in August and to be finished in 1968.

Nurses (Midwifery Training)

Mr. Turton: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that a state registered nurse who decides to train in midwifery under the present regulations suffers a reduction in salary and allowances; and whether he will refer this anomaly to the Nurses and Midwives Whitley Council.

Mr. K. Robinson: The Council has already made an agreement by which hospital authorities may second qualified nurses who are willing to train and subsequently to work as midwives. In these circumstances remuneration is not reduced.

Mr. Turton: If a nurse volunteers to do a course of training to improve her qualifications, surely it is wrong for her to be penalised?

Mr. Robinson: I think that there is some misunderstanding about this. This is not a higher qualification, it is a different one, and many nurses take this qualification while not intending to practise midwifery at all. In these circumstances, I do not think it is appropriate that she should go on being paid as a working nurse while she is a student.

Mr. Wood: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that this distinction which he has made of a different qualification is very great? She is trying to qualify herself more for work which she may be doing. Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider what my right hon. Friend said?

Mr. Robinson: The point is that where she is willing to do midwifery the hospital can arrange for her to be seconded without loss of pay. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that this matter has been raised with innumerable Ministers of Health since I have been in the House.

Dame Irene Ward: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the important thing in life today is for people to get the maximum number of qualifications which they possibly can? Why make this distinction? It is perfectly idiotic.

Mr. Robinson: I could not accept that, because if the nurse in question is not intending to make use of this additional qualification—

Dame Irene Ward: She might.

Mr. Robinson: —she is lost to active nursing for the duration of the course.

Oral Answers to Questions — DUCHY OF LANCASTER

Social Workers

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what estimate he has made of the numbers of trained social workers required in the public services other than those

controlled by the local authorities; and what prospects there are of training them.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Douglas Houghton): First, probation and after-care officers in England and Wales number about 2,400. By 1970 some 3,500 will be needed. Second, hospitals in England and Wales employ about 1,050 medical and psychiatric social workers. More are needed and hospitals are being asked to review their social work organisation and to implement a new grading structure which will facilitate joint services with local authorities. Training facilities for all these services are being expanded and should be adequate.

Mr. Lloyd: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for that information, does he not feel that the whole question of the training of these social workers should be looked at in a co-ordinated manner, and does he not think that there is a particular danger of overlooking the needs of essential officers in hospitals, such as medical social workers and so forth?

Mr. Houghton: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it is desirable to keep in touch with the several bodies responsible for the training of social workers and the organisations representing them in order to ensure that there is an adequate supply of recruits and proper facilities for training in the course of the expansion, which is inevitable and desirable, of qualified and trained workers in the social field.
Central Government are not directly in charge of the numbers employed in the hospital services. Local hospital management committees are responsible for the services in their areas. But, there again, I agree that it is desirable from a central point, which I attempt to fill, to see that supplies are adequate and especially that the joint services are run between hospital authorities and local—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The answer is far too long.

Lord Balniel: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain why the committee which was recently set up to consider what changes are needed in strengthening the family services covers local authority social workers but excludes probation


social workers and medical and psychiatric social workers? Surely he is treating the matter piecemeal instead of considering the profession as a whole?

Mr. Houghton: All this was gone into at the time we appointed the committee. It was announced, and I have nothing further to say.

Public Insurance (Motor Accidents)

Mr. Hamling: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what steps are being taken in the review of social security provisions to consider the advisability of public insurance against risks arising from motor accidents where liability is not covered by normal car insurance policies.

Mr. Houghton: This particular form of insurance is outside the scope of our social security review, but the provisions for disablement and widowhood, however they arise, are included.

Mr. Hamling: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there have been several distressing cases in recent months of pedestrians being involved in and being held liable for accidents, which have caused much distress both to the persons affected and those causing the accidents?

Mr. Houghton: Yes, I am aware of that, but there are more accidents than those caused by motor cars, cycles and pedestrians, and we have to cover all risks of disablement and widowhood. That is what we are doing in the review, but no accidents due to specific causes are included.

Mr. Frederic Harris: Does the Minister not appreciate that there is a very real point here? A considerable number of accidents are taking place and people are being badly injured without any cover of insurance at all, merely because the Government themselves are not insisting that everyone should be carrying insurance as well as Road Fund licences?

Mr. Houghton: It is a matter of opinion whether a risk of this kind should be carried under a State scheme of social insurance. I have already said that in the major review we are giving consideration to all disablement and widowhood from whatever cause. That is social security. Insurance risks in many cases are quite a different thing.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, so far as motor insurance is concerned, it is a matter which is being considered now by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport along the lines which I have recommended to her?

Mr. Howe: On that matter, which the Minister seems reluctant to answer, for well over a year now the Minister of Transport and her predecessor have been allegedly negotiating better conditions with the Motor Insurers' Bureau to get proper compensation at least for the victims of hit-and-run drivers, and would he give urgent attention to encouraging his right hon. Friend to bring these negotiations to an early conclusion?

Mr. Houghton: That is not a matter for me.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF LABOUR

Equal Pay

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: asked the Minister of Labour when the Report of the Inter-departmental Working Party on Equal Pay will be published.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Ernest Thornton): It is not customary to publish the reports of official committees of this kind, and my right hon. Friend does not propose to publish this Report. The Working Party's task was to give the Government an up-to-date appraisal of the relevant facts and their implications, and this it has done.

Mr. Jenkins: Has my right hon. Friend nothing more to say? Is he not aware that this matter was included in the Labour Party's election manifesto? Has he no further prospect or encouragement to hold out?

Mr. Thornton: This Report was prepared for the information of Ministers and was never intended for publication. We are now going to proceed forthwith to have discussions with representatives of the C.B.I, and the T.U.C. to find ways and means of implementing the principles.

Dr. Summerskill: asked the Minister of Labour if he will make a statement on the Report of the Working Party on Equal Pay for women.

Mr. Thornton: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to the hon. Member for Clapham (Mrs. McKay) on 31st January.

Dr. Summerskill: Will my hon. Friend please say when the meeting between the Minister, the T.U.C. and the Confederation of British Industry will start, and when the discussions will be completed.

Mr. Thornton: I hope that the discussions between my right hon. Friend, the T.U.C. and the C.B.I, will commence before very long. I cannot give a specific date; neither can I give a date when the discussions will be completed.

Immigrants

Mr. Freeson: asked the Minister of Labour what advice is being given to employers who are refused Class A work vouchers under the Commonwealth Immigrants Act as a result of the ceiling quota imposed under the terms of the White Paper on Immigration from the Commonwealth and who are unable to fill their vacancies from within the United Kingdom.

Mr. Thornton: Applications for Category A vouchers are not refused as a result of the limitation on the number that can be issued, but consideration of them is postponed and the employers concerned are advised accordingly.

Mr. Freeson: With respect, there is little difference between saying that an application has been refused and saying that the application has gone on the waiting list and will take about a year to be reached. Is not my hon. Friend aware that this is happening in some cases? What kind of advice is being given to employers, as asked in my Question?

Mr. Thornton: The advice that is given to employers is that there will be delay in dealing with their applications, and when the time comes for them to be considered the applications will be investigated.

Mr. Freeson: asked the Minister of Labour how many applications by United Kingdom employers for Class A work vouchers under the Commonwealth Immigrants Act have been refused since the introduction of the ceiling quota in

the White Paper on Immigration from the Commonwealth; and what were the unfilled vacancies involved.

Mr. Thornton: Since the beginning of August last year about 1, 450 applications have been rejected after examination.

Mr. Freeson: Does not this bear out the point that I was trying to make in my previous supplementary question? Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied with the situation in which 1,000 applications have been made by employers to employ people whom they require but who are not able to fill those vacancies from applicants within the United Kingdom? Will he arrange for the question of this quota ceiling to be examined further? It prevents employers obtaining adequate staffs.

Mr. Thornton: The Government took the decision to limit the number of vouchers issued. I can give no undertaking that this decision will be reviewed in the near future. We must face the fact that in many sections of employment and in many parts of the country shortages of labour exist.

Industrial Tribunals (Reports)

Mr. Howe: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will arrange for the regular and properly indexed publication in a series of industrial reports of all important decisions given by industrial tribunals, including the reasons for such decisions.

Mr. Thornton: Reports of selected decisions of the industrial tribunals, with the reasons for those decisions, will be published by Her Majesty's Stationery Office on behalf of the tribunals. The form of the publication is under consideration. All the tribunals' decisions, with the reasons, are entered in a register open to public inspection at the central offices of the tribunals in London and Glasgow.

Mr. Howe: I thank the hon. Member for that reply, but when consideration is given to the form of the reports will he bear in mind the difficulty that arose in the early days of the Insurance Commissioners due to the absence of a properly indexed and comprehensive series setting out the reasons? In view of the important decisions that these tribunals will have taken and are likely to take on other subjects in the future, can the Minister


assure us that we shall have a speedily produced and properly indexed series of reports on all these matters?

Mr. Thornton: I think that I can give the hon. and learned Member that assurance.

Pensions (Transferability)

Mrs. Shirley Williams: asked the Minister of Labour what action he is contemplating to make all pensions, including pensions for people in executive and supervisory posts, transferable as between firms.

Mr. Thornton: A committee of my right hon. Friend's National Joint Advisory Council has now reported on the question of the preservation of pension rights on change of employment. The Council has agreed that the report should be published and will be discussing it at its next meeting in April.

Mrs. Williams: I thank my hon. Friend for that Answer, but is he aware of the urgency of this matter and especially of the need to redeploy people of skill on both sides of industry in order to achieve the economic aims of the Government?

Mr. Thornton: I can assure my hon. Friend that we are pushing forward with this as a matter of urgency.

Sir B. Craddock: Can we take it from the Minister's Answer that the Government will support the Bill on this subject which I hope to introduce on 22nd April?

Mr. Thornton: I can give no commitment on that point.

Engineering and Allied Occupations

Mr. Howe: asked the Minister of Labour to what extent there has been any change since June, 1965, in the number of persons registered as unemployed in skilled engineering and allied occupations in relation to the number of vacancies in such occupations.

Mr. Thornton: In June, 1965, 9,177 men last employed in the engineering and allied group of occupations were registered as wholly unemployed and there were 37,532 notified unfilled vacancies. In December, 1965, the figures were, respectively, 9,800 and 34,404.

Mr. Howe: In view of the fact that the National Plan states that the reduction in the ratio between vacancies and men in this important skilled trade is a matter of the highest importance if we are to prevent difficulties stretching right the way through the economy, is the Minister satisfied that sufficient is being done to train men for these skills to meet the large excess in vacancies which still exists?

Mr. Thornton: There has been a reduction of about one-seventh in the proportion, which is not sufficient. However, we are satisfied that we are doing all we can to speed up the expansion of Government training centres and to set up training boards. The Training Board for the Engineering Industry is fully apprised of the seriousness of this matter and it can be relied on to deal with it as a matter of urgency and seriousness.

CHINA (NUCLEAR WEAPONS)

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the best estimate available to Her Majesty's Government of the Chinese People's Republic's nuclear weapons capacity.

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Michael Stewart): The Government of the Chinese People's Republic detonated nuclear devices on 16th October, 1964 and 14th May, 1965. The Chinese capability is very limited, but weapons of nominal yield developed from their tests could be delivered by aircraft against lightly-defended targets.

Mr. Griffiths: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the combination of China's increasing nuclear power and the aggressive statements of some of its leaders is an alarming source of anxiety in the Far East? Does not he also agree that it is one reason why Her Majesty's Government are not only looking for a non-proliferation agreement but are supporting our American allies in seeking to contain this power in the Far East?

Mr. Stewart: Everyone would probably agree with the first part of the hon. Member's supplementary question. I also agree that it is important to seek a non-proliferation treaty. But our policy


towards China must be seen in rather larger terms than the hon. Member has used. It is the view of Her Majesty's Government that one part of our policy towards China should be to endeavour, whatever the difficulties, to get her into the international community of the United Nations.

Mr. Shinwell: If that is the conclusion that my right hon. Friend has reached—and it is a very wise one—why not try to bring more pressure to bear, or at any rate why not use persuasion on the United States Government so that they can escape from their intransigence in this respect in order to obtain consent for and acceptance of the Chinese People's Republic into the United Nations?

Mr. Stewart: I have taken many opportunities to make our point of view clear to the United States Government.

SOUTH-EAST ASIA TREATY ORGANISATION

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is satisfied with present arrangements for political and military co ordination among the South-East Asia Treaty Organisation nations; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. M. Stewart: I foresee no need to propose changes at present in the existing arrangements.

Mr. Griffiths: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that in recent years S.E.A.T.O. has become something of a dead duck? Is it not just as important to revive this alliance and make it effective as it is to make statements about Britain's intention of remaining east of Suez?

Mr. Stewart: I do not agree with the hon. Member's estimate. As he knows, the annual conference of S.E.A.T.O. occurs somewhat later this year, and if there are changes or improvements they can then be considered.

EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY

Mr. A. Royle: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps he is taking to implement the proposals

made by the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs at Strasbourg last month by initiating talks with a view to joining the European Economic Community.

Mr. M. Stewart: My hon. Friend's speech was a restatement of the Government's policy. There can be no question of initiating talks until it is clear that the obstacles to British membership which have existed hitherto within the Community have disappeared.

Mr. Royle: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that very important developments have taken place in Europe since his hon. Friend made his speech at Strasbourg? Will he reconsider the situation and seriously consider opening negotiations to join the European Economic Community?

Mr. Stewart: No. I think that I should stick to the terms of the Answer I have just given the hon. Member. I am aware of the developments within the Common Market itself, but I do not think—as events now stand—that it would be sensible for me to say more than my hon. Friend and I have said.

Mr. Edelman: In the light of what my right hon. Friend himself has already said, does not he think that it would be timely for him to make a more formal declaration of intent on behalf of Britain? [Interruption.]

Mr. Stewart: No. I do not think that that would be a suitable step at this juncture.

Lady Tweedsmuir: In view of the apparently general acceptance of the idea in the House, arising from the last supplementary question, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that if he were to make a general statement of intent now it would do away with the misunderstanding which appears to have arisen, namely, that the British Government have a lukewarm attitude on this most important issue?

Mr. Stewart: There is no misunderstanding about this. It has been made quite clear, in terms, that we are ready to enter the Community if certain essential British interests can be safeguarded. I am sure that no hon. Member would wish to suggest that we should proceed without regard for certain essential British


interests, and the statements that we have so far made reflect the present situation and needs of this country.

Mr. Shinwell: Would my right hon. Friend care to remind himself and his colleagues in the Government that the five conditions laid down some years ago for our entry into the E.E.C. have not been modified by any decision reached since that time?

Mr. Stewart: Indeed, I remind myself of this and my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) reminds me as well. He will remember that I have referred to this matter more than once in the House, though I added—I think rightly—that events have made some of those conditions easier to fulfil than they were at the time that they were stated.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Is not the right hon. Gentleman being a little changeable, having, by earlier statements, suggested that Her Majesty's Government are now interpreting much more flexibly the five conditions mentioned by his right hon. Friend?

Mr. Stewart: No, Sir. What I have said about the five conditions before is what I said just now, that the actual movement of events has made some of the conditions easier of fulfilment than they were.

Mr. Royle: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I intend to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

HIRE PURCHASE AND RENTAL AGREEMENTS

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Douglas Jay): With permission, I should like to make a statement on hire purchase and rental agreements.
I have made two Orders which come into operation tomorrow. One of these will increase the minimum deposit, and reduce the maximum period for repayment, required for most goods at present subject to control under the Hire Purchase and Credit Sale Agreements (Control) Order. Where the minimum deposit on an item is 15 per cent. it will become 25 per cent. In the case of furniture and mattresses, the minimum deposit is being raised from

10 per cent. to 15 per cent. I have decided to make no change in the minimum deposit required for cars, but the maximum period for repayment of the balance will be reduced from 30 months to 27 months.
For other items where the maximum period for repayment is at present 30 months, the period will be reduced to 24 months. For furniture and mattresses the maximum period will be reduced from 36 months to 30 months. I have decided to make no change in either the minimum deposit or the maximum repayment for cookers and water heaters.
The other Order will increase the minimum rental which has to be paid in advance under a hiring agreement, for all goods now subject to control, from 20 to 32 weeks.
The Government have made clear on many occasions that we are determined to eliminate the balance of payments deficit this year, following the substantial improvement that was made in 1965. To achieve this it is necessary to watch carefully the pressures on the economy. Industrial investment continues at a high level; and exports have been rising strongly. In these circumstances, we must continue to ensure that consumption does not make undue demands upon our resources.

Mr. Barber: The right hon. Gentleman will know that anything necessary to strengthen the economy or support sterling will have our support. I should like to ask him four questions, if I may.
First, is not the sole purpose of the Orders to cut consumption and is not the fact that they are necessary at all a recognition of the almost total failure of the Government's incomes policy?
Secondly, why have the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues chosen this method of restricting consumption, bearing in mind that this new squeeze will be heavily concentrated on a limited number of industries and will bear heavily on a very small range of goods?
Thirdly, does the right hon. Gentleman agree with the view hitherto expressed by the Prime Minister that to increase hire-purchase deposits involves a social bias against those with modest incomes, or has the right hon. Gentleman now changed his mind?
Lastly, on the question of timing, will the right hon. Gentleman say whether these proposals were being considered in Government circles before the Hull, North by-election of only 10 days ago?

Mr. Jay: On the first question, about whether it is intended to cut consumption, no, the Orders are intended to restrain it from increasing further. The purpose is to complete this year the elimination of the balance of payments deficit bequeathed to us by right hon. Gentlemen opposite.
The right hon. Gentleman asked, secondly, why this particular measure and the answer is, because, in all the circumstances, we consider it the most appropriate. If he wishes to propose alternatives, we shall of course be glad to know what they are.
The right hon. Gentleman asked, thirdly, whether there was not a social bias in operating on the minimum deposit. There might have been if we had not carefully varied the figure between one type of product and another and eliminated some altogether for this very reason.
The right hon. Gentleman asked, finally, when we considered this problem. We have been considering it for a few weeks past.

Mr. Snow: Is my right hon. Friend aware that responsible people in the hire-purchase business are in full support of his general proposition? Would he please not accept any advice from the Tories, as they got us into this trouble?

Mr. Jay: We have paid more attention to the advice which we have received from industry than to that of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite.

Mr. William Clark: Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that this is an extension of the credit squeeze, in whatever terms he puts it, and that this is the longest credit squeeze which we have had since the end of the war?

Mr. Jay: No, Sir—[HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] No, Sir. This is a moderate measure of restraint. We have to get used to moderate changes if we are to avoid the kind of violent jerks by which so much harm was done in the past.

Mr. Frederic Harris: Does not the right hon. Gentleman recognise that this

is a confirmation that we are living in a time of roaring inflation?

Mr. Jay: No, Sir. It is perfectly true that employment is high, investment is high, exports are high and incomes are high—and we are very glad that this is so—but the hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that there must be some restraint.

Mr. Lubbock: Would it have been necessary to make this statement if the Government had been successful in controlling wages and salaries increases within the 3½per cent. norm? Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that investment in the industries concerned will not be affected? If consumption is restricted in the way he has mentioned, will not those industries be working at less than capacity and, therefore, export prices be affected adversely?

Mr. Jay: If we had been less successful than we have, we should have had to introduce a greater measure of restraint.

Dame Joan Vickers: Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the question of mattresses? Surely they cannot be considered a luxury? In any case, this proposition would hit the lower-income groups very hard indeed.

Mr. Jay: Mattresses have always been classed together with furniture for this purpose. I would remind the hon. Lady that this product has not been subject to previous measures of restriction.

Mr. Prior: After two Budgets and a year of stagnation and now these measures, when can we expect the next lot?

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: Is the business community to understand that there will normally be an extra pinch to the credit squeeze about 10 days after a by-election?

Mr. Jay: No, Sir.

Mr. Bagier: Would my right hon. Friend not accept that if this is a credit squeeze it has been carried out without the abnormal increase in unemployment which was a feature of those carried out by the party opposite? Will my right hon. Friend accept that the whole country is aware of the necessity for bringing the economy into a proper balance? The result in the Hull by-election has shown that it appreciates the difficulty and will vote accordingly.

Mr. Jay: Yes, Sir. We have avoided the violent jerks of the past and the heavy increases of unemployment which we had both in 1959 and in 1962.

Mr. Barber: When the right hon. Gentleman talks about avoiding violent jerks, will he bear in mind that last year he increased the minimum deposit on many goods from 10 per cent. to 15 per cent. and that he is now increasing it from 15 per cent. to 25 per cent.?

Mr. Jay: The right hon. Gentleman seems unable to appreciate the point. We have not had either the heavy fall in production or the heavy rise in unemployment which we had on the two previous occasions.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I understand that we are to debate this subject at some time.

Orders of the Day — NATIONAL INSURANCE BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

3.41 p.m.

The Minister of Pensions and National Insurance (Miss Margaret Herbison): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
In our manifesto for the last election we outlined our plans for social security. From time to time the Opposition, both Front Bench and back bench, have shown interest in the progress of the implementation of those plans, and it seemed to me that perhaps it would be useful, particularly for the Opposition, if, in the first part of my speech, I dealt with the pledges which we have honoured. The plans which we gave in our manifesto were plans for a five-year term of government. We have now been the Government for between 15 and 16 months.
The first promise in our manifesto was to raise existing benefits. This we did at the earliest moment possible. Pensioners, for example, received the highest increase since 1946 not only in their pensions but in National Assistance. Sickness, unemployment and industrial injuries benefits and war disability pensions were raised by the largest amount ever in the history of National Insurance in this country.
What about the widows? The earnings rule for widows was abolished only two months after we had become the Government and the 10s. widow had her pension increased to 30s. Another pledge which we fulfilled in that part of our manifesto was to give redundancy payments to workers when they lost their jobs. That was implemented and came into operation in December of last year. In March of this year thousands of disabled workers in receipt of payments under the old Workmen's Compensation Acts will get an increase, and the extremely disabled industrial and war pensioner—those who are very, very disabled—will receive an extra £3 a week.
I think that I am justified in saying that never since the period 1945–50 has there been such activity in improving social security. But, as Minister responsible for this Department, I am very far from being complacent. I realise only


too well how much is still to be done. But what we have achieved in the face of tremendous economic problems is proof of our will to complete our whole programme. As we have told the House time and again, we have been carrying out a general review of the whole field of social security. This Bill is the first of the new developments stemming from the review. But I want to stress that it is an interim Measure which will be re-examined in the light of the results of the completed review. The main feature of the Bill is the proposal to pay earnings-related supplements with unemployment, sickness and widows' benefits.
I want to turn to the National Plan for a moment. The plan shows the important part which earnings-related unemployment benefit can play in promoting the mobility of labour which is very much needed to meet economic and technological change. The provision of the Bill for earnings-related unemployment benefit is complementary to the Redundancy Payments Act. Both of them are to be seen in the setting of the economic needs of this country. It was made clear in the National Plan that priority is being given to schemes which can help to promote faster economic growth. For my part, as Minister in a big spending Department, the fastest economic growth possible is what I want.
In our manifesto—and the National Plan has not departed from our manifesto—we said:
the key factor in determining the speed at which new and better levels of benefit can be introduced will be the rate at which the British economy can expand.
We said that before the election. That still stands today.
So far, I have dealt with the economic reasons for earnings-related unemployment benefit, but there are also compelling social reasons for this benefit and for treating sickness and widows' benefit in the same way. So often there is a drastic fall in income for a man who becomes unemployed, for a man who becomes sick, for a woman who loses her husband. I think that everyone in the House and the country realises that this drastic fall in income causes very severe hardship to thousands of people every year and excessive worries for many families. Because of that I feel that the social reasons for the provisions of

the Bill are as compelling as the economic reasons. We promised in our manifesto that widows' benefits would be
reshaped in a new and more generous way".
The provisions of the Bill are merely the beginning of that reshaping. We have taken the first opportunity to make improvements.
I should like to turn to the proposals in the Bill. The introduction of earnings-related unemployment benefit highlights the difficulties and anomalies in the existing system, and they are very great indeed. The Bill therefore seeks to simplify some of these provisions and to bring them more into line with modern conditions. The recommendations in the Report of the Committee on the Assessment of Disablement, in so far as they affect the Industrial Injuries Scheme, are implemented in the Bill. The proposal to pay the earnings-related supplement to sickness benefit on top of injury benefit has led the Government to propose in the Bill some further changes in the Industrial Injuries Scheme which are intended to simplify administration. Finally, there are proposals for some minor changes designed to keep the present National Insurance Scheme in good day-to-day running order.
What is the coverage of the Bill? Clause 2 provides for the new earnings-related supplements which will be payable to employed contributors over 18 and under pension age who are entitled to the existing flat-rate unemployment and sickness benefits. That is an important matter. The earnings supplements will be paid, with just one exception only, to those who are at present entitled to flat-rate unemployment and sickness benefits. The rate of the supplement will be one-third of the average weekly earnings between £9 and £30. They will be paid on top of the present flat-rate benefits including increases for dependants, but they will be subject to a maximum total benefit of 85 per cent. of earnings. The maximum supplement will, therefore, be £7, which is one-third of £21, for the claimant with average weekly earnings of £30 a week or more.
An upper limit of benefit expressed as a percentage of earnings—to secure that claimants generally are not better off when sick or unemployed than they would be at work—is a natural feature of a


scheme in which benefits are related to earnings. A maximum of this kind is particularly necessary in a scheme like ours, where the personal rate of benefit can be increased substantially by allowances for dependants. There are in other countries some schemes where no allowance at all is made for dependants. The figure of 85 per cent.—and it is 85 per cent. of gross earnings, not of net earnings—takes into account the fact that gross earnings are subject to deductions for P.A.Y.E., National Insurance contributions and other expenses which do not arise during unemployment or sickness.
The £9 minimum level of earnings is the same as the existing minimum level of earnings for graduated contributions. People earning below £9 a week will be entitled to only flat-rate benefit, but this will, of course, be a relatively high percentage of their earnings—a higher proportion than the new benefits will provide for the higher paid. The existing upper limit of £18 for graduated contribution purposes would have been too low for the new short-term benefits, but it will continue to apply to graduated pensions. The proposed upper limit for short-term benefits is £30, which is rather more than one-and-a-half times the present level of national average earnings.
How are we to reckon earnings? Supplements will be based on earnings assessable to Schedule E Income Tax—in general, earnings taxed under P.A.Y.E. Average weekly earnings will be taken as one fiftieth—not one fifty-second—of annual gross earnings, usually those in the last complete tax year. It is proposed to determine earnings as far as possible by asking the claimant to produce the certificate of pay and tax deducted—that is, the Inland Revenue form P. 60, or its equivalent—which the employer gives to each employee at the end of the tax year. It will, therefore, help to get the supplement paid quickly—and I particularly stress this—if every employee, when he gets his Certificate of Pay and Tax Deducted next April, will keep it safely in case it is needed.
What will happen if a worker loses his P. 60? Where the P. 60 cannot be used to determine earnings, it will be necessary to send inquiries to employers. This will cause delay, possibly to the pay-

ment of the supplement, which the worker will want to get quickly. It will also put an extra burden on employers. If we want to get our economic situation straight, we do not want to put extra unnecessary work on to employers. It is, therefore, in the interests of everyone concerned to see that this extra work is kept to a minimum.
What will be the duration of the supplement? It will be payable for up to six months of unemployment or sickness after the first 12 days. This waiting time is necessary to ensure that the supplement does not have to be calculated for the very large number of very short spells of incapacity, or unemployment. Special provision will be made for the supplement to be paid on top of injury benefit and widow's benefits, where these benefits are being paid instead of flat-rate unemployment benefit or sickness benefit. Thus, injuries benefit is also covered in the Bill.
How many people should benefit from the provisions of the Bill? The number to benefit from the new supplements will, of course, depend on the number of unemployed and sick persons, and we know how both can vary widely. When there is an epidemic, as we now have in some parts of Scotland and the north of England particularly, the numbers vary. This is not something new. The levels of sickness benefit always vary seasonally. The Government Actuary has, however, worked out—this is his job; and one needs to know these things if one is to have a scheme that is financially sound—that, on average, about a quarter of a million sick people, including 30,000 on injury benefit, and about 110,000 unemployed people—assuming a 2 per cent. level of unemployment—would be receiving the supplement at any one time.
What will be the cost? On this basis, as worked out by the Actuary, the cost of the supplements in the first full year is estimated at about £64 million.

Sir Keith Joseph: Did the right hon. Lady mention the figure of 130,000?

Miss Herbison: No. I said 110,000.
We hope, if the Bill is passed through Parliament in time for the necessary administrative arrangements to be made, to start paying the supplements in the


autumn of this year. Every day is important. If we consider previous radical changes in social security—for example, those made during the 1945–50 period—we find that the graduated pensions scheme took two years from the passing of the legislation until the provisions began to operate. That is why I stress how important it is that no time is lost in getting the Bill through all its stages because we hope to operate it by about six months from the passing of the legislation.
I will now deal with some general matters of the Bill. Clause 4 provides for two important changes in widow's allowance. This is the allowance payable at a specially high rate in the initial period—that is, 13 weeks at present—after the husband's death to women whose husbands had not retired or who are themselves under 60. The first change, which will apply to all widows entitled to widow's allowance on or after the appointed day, is to extend the period of the allowance from 13 to 26 weeks. In other words, we are doubling the period of the allowance. This will give the widow a longer 'time in which to adjust herself to her new situation in life. Everyone knows that there are many difficulties, apart from the financial ones, which face women recently widowed and this longer time should help them to overcome some of these difficulties.
The second change is to pay to widows of employed men who have not retired and who die after the appointed day a widow's supplementary allowance calculated in broadly the same way as the supplement to the husband's unemployment or sickness benefit. The rate of the supplement will be one-third of his average weekly earnings between £9 and £30, giving a maximum supplement of £7 a week on top of the existing widow's allowance of £5 12s. 6d. In addition, there will be the allowances for children.
It is expected that the extended period of widows' allowance will benefit about 85,000 widows a year, and that the new supplement will be paid to about 70,000 widows annually. The total cost of this part of the Bill in a full year will be about £9 million.
There are other widows' benefits. The Bill, or regulations under it, will provide similar improvements in benefits for

widows receiving death benefit under the Industrial Injuries Scheme. It is also proposed, under the war pensions scheme, to increase from 13 weeks to 26 weeks the duration of the temporary allowance for widows of severely disabled war pensioners. I have discovered, as I have been meeting the chairmen of committees of war pensioners, how much value they have placed on the decision of my predecessor to give this 13-week allowance. To increase it to 26 weeks will, I am sure, be greatly welcomed by the ex-Service men's world. This provision will require an amendment of the Royal Warrant.
We have taken the opportunity to provide for some simplification and modernisation of unemployment benefit. The introduction into unemployment benefit of supplements related to earnings highlights certain difficulties and anomalies in the existing provisions, which I have mentioned. The Government have thought it desirable to propose in Clause 3, and in regulations to be laid later, changes to simplify the present arrangements, and to give a new impetus to the part that unemployment benefit can play in the economic and social conditions of today.
The Bill proposes an important change in the provisions affecting workers whose employment has not been terminated, but who are temporarily suspended from work by the employer. Such suspension can vary, as we all know, from short-time working during any one week or a few weeks in which an employee receives a substantial proportion of his usual earnings, to prolonged lay-off because of an emergency—a factory fire, perhaps—in which the position of the employee may be much the same as if he had lost his job altogether.
Workers who are suspended are at present able to qualify for unemployment benefit subject to a very complicated set of rules. The longer I have been in the Ministry and the more representations I have had made to me about these complicated rules the more important I feel it is that we should do something about them. In practice, they have led to serious anomalies and difficulties, and to introduce earnings-related supplements into this situation would be quite intolerable. But there are compelling reasons—and again I say that


they are social reasons as well as economic—why we should go further and bring the present unsatisfactory position to an end as soon as possible.
Attempts that have been made in the past to deal with this problem have only intensified the anomalies and the difficulties. This has led in certain industries—and we all know this—to the manipulation of short-time working to get round the benefit rules. The resources of employment exchanges have to be diverted from constructive work on behalf of those who are really unemployed to the task of handling benefit claims for workers who already have an employer and whose attendance at the employment exchange has little or nothing to do with looking for another job. In some cases, indeed, we have found that the guaranteed week agreement, which ought to be the workers' protection against short-time working, is reduced or suspended by arrangement between the parties so that more benefit can be drawn.
It does not seem sense economically, nor is it right socially, that the contributions of the general mass of workers—many of whom earn less full time than others are getting when they are employed part-time or on short time—should be used in this way to subsidise earnings in certain industries. I think that any reasonable person would accept that view. With earnings—related benefits, especially, it would be quite wrong to pay benefit for part of the week to people who still have a job and have earnings during the rest of the week.
The Government propose to tackle this problem at its very roots. Where an employer wants to retain a worker in his employment, we feel that the employer should accept responsibility for paying that worker a guaranteed minimum wage. Many employers already accept this responsibility, and their workers do not claim unemployment benefit for days when there is no work for them to do.
Our long-term aim is that the system under which workers who are on short-time are eligible for unemployment benefit should be brought to an end. Clause 3(1) therefore proposes that, as a permanent long-term measure, the first six days of

suspension shall not give entitlement to unemployment benefit, either flat rate or supplement. Since Sundays are to be excluded in calculating the six days—as are days of recognised or customary holiday—this means that workers who are suspended will not start to qualify for unemployment benefit until the period of suspension has lasted a week.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Perhaps my right hon. Friend will explain that part a little further. Is it intended to introduce some other type of legislation to cover this point about employers agreeing to a guaranteed week? If not, this provision will hurt those workers considerably. It seems to me that we cannot say that they ought not to qualify unless we can at the same time guarantee the introduction of legislation which will compel the employers to reach such an agreement.

Miss Herbison: I will be dealing with that point a little later, because I know that this is a matter that will worry many people in many ways.
We recognise that to impose the new six-day rule in its entirety from the outset would impose hardship on workers in industries where there are no satisfactory guaranteed-wage agreements—and for the very reason that my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) has adduced. That is why we decided that it would impose hardship if we just said that these new provisions would begin to operate from the very beginning.
The Bill therefore provides for a transitional period of three years, in which both sides of industry can negotiate on the provisions to be made for short-time working and for the first week of lay-off when this is no longer covered by the National Insurance Fund. In this transitional period the new six-day rule will apply to the earnings-related supplement, but the existing rules will continue to apply to the flat-rate benefit so that this will be payable exactly as at present.
Therefore, when this provision comes into operation, nobody will be worse off; indeed, the vast majority of workers will be better off. In this way the Government hope to secure an essential long-term change in the function of unemployment benefit without causing short-term hardship.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: When my right hon. Friend speaks of the first week of lay-off, I presume that this could be from Wednesday to Wednesday and not necessarily starting on a Monday?

Miss Herbison: Yes, I understand that that is so. It is the first week of lay-off. That is why I mentioned Sunday, which is not included as a working day. I well understand some of the problems in my hon. Friend's area and the reason for his asking that question.
Since it is imperative that satisfactory wage agreements should be made between workers and employers before the end of the three years, the Government will examine the position reached at the end of 18 months—half way through—and, if necessary, will introduce legislation to make such agreements compulsory.
Another important change in unemployment benefit will be made in the regulations, but it is right to mention it now because it is complementary to the stricter measures we are proposing for workers whose employment has not been terminated. At present, where a worker loses his job, payments made to him by his former employer may prevent him from getting unemployment benefit. It is proposed that in future all payments by the employer, except wages in lieu of notice, should be ignored for unemployment benefit purposes. That, to some, will be of great importance. This means that payments of holiday pay or resettlement benefit will no longer affect entitlement to unemployment benefit.
This relaxation will simply another set of rules which has given rise to anomalies and complications. It is hoped that it will also help to break down resistance to changes of job and thus play its part in encouraging mobility of labour. I know from a firm in my constituency how important it is that we should encourage and get this mobility of labour if we are to employ people who could be taken off the unemployment register. That cannot be done now because we cannot get the few skilled workers needed and whose employment would lead to the employment of perhaps many hundreds of others.
Taken together with the new earnings-related supplements—and the recent legis-

lation on redundancy payments—these changes make a new approach to provision for unemployment. Unemployment benefit, at a much higher rate because of the new supplements, will be available with fewer restrictions to people who have unavoidably lost their jobs and are available for re-employment. Where the contract with the employer has not been terminated greater responsibility will fall on the employer and less use will be made of employment exchanges for the sole purpose of getting unemployment benefit. Our aim is to break once and for all with the "dole" image and move towards a fresh, constructive realignment of the responsibilities of the State and employers in this field.
I turn to the duration of flat-rate benefit. A third change in unemployment benefit concerns the duration of the flat-rate benefit. At present, this is 180 days—seven months' benefit excluding Sundays—plus up to 312 days, one year, of "added days" depending on a person's contribution and benefit history. At first sight, it might appear reasonable that a person with a good contribution and benefit history should be entitled to a longer duration of benefit, but it is becoming more and more out of touch with modern ideas of social security. Unemployment usually arises through social and economic factors over which the individual has little or no control and it is unfair to pay benefit for a shorter period to the man who has worked in a less stable industry and been harder hit by economic factors. The calculation of added days is a further complication of unemployment benefit and once again our proposals are directed towards simplification.
Clause 3(2) of the Bill proposes to substitute for the existing provisions a straight 312-day maximum duration for flat-rate unemployment benefit. This will give up to 12 months' total benefit—six months of which may attract earnings-related supplement. The new rules will apply immediately to anyone currently entitled to less than 12 months' benefit. There will be special transitional arrangements for those with existing rights to more than 12 months' benefit so that anyone who is already receiving "added days" when the new scheme starts will get the full quota to which he is entitled under the existing rules.
Of course, we have to have contributions to pay for all these benefits.

Sir Spencer Summers: Before the right hon. Lady leaves the question of benefits, will she say a word about the maximum, in certain cases 85 per cent. of earnings? Some of us feel that this is bound to lead to increased absenteeism.

Miss Herbison: I have given the reasons for the 85 per cent. Unfortunately, that will apply in the main to the low wage earner. The higher wage earner, unless he has a very great number of dependants, will never be touched by the ceiling.
Perhaps the hon. Member has not noticed that the supplement will not be paid for the first 12 days. That takes account of the criticism, I think the unjustified criticism, which has appeared in some organs of the Press. In Committee, if the hon. Member wishes to deal with this further, I shall be happy to give further facts and figures.
Higher contributions will be needed to pay for the new earnings-related benefits. There has been some criticism in some of the Press that the provisions of the Bill are an extension of the previous Government's graduated pensions scheme, but we never complained about the machinery for collecting contributions under this scheme. What we complained about was the gross inadequacy of the benefits. The machinery for collecting contributions is excellent, and of course we shall use it. It is clearly right that the extra contributions should be related to earnings just as the supplements will be related to earnings.
The Bill therefore provides, in Clause 1, that the present graduated contributions of 4¼ per cent. a side by employer and employee on the part of earnings between £9 and £18 per week should be increased by ½ per cent. a side on earnings between £9 and £30 a week. The ½ per cent. increase in graduated contributions will also count for graduated retirement pension like the existing 4½ per cent.
There will be no contracting out of the new earnings-related benefits and the extra ½ per cent. contribution will also be levied on those who have contracted out of the 4¼ per cent. contribution for the graduated retirement pension. There

will be no major alterations at this stage in the contracting-out arrangements. The level of equivalent pension benefits will not be changed by the Bill. Existing contracting-out certificates will, therefore, remain valid. In other words, this is an interim scheme. Similarly, the amount of "payment in lieu" which has to be made to the National Insurance Fund if a person ceases to be in contracted-out employment without having his equivalent pension benefits rights assured to him will remain unaltered.
Special tables will be supplied to employers to help them to calculate the new contributions payable on any specified earnings. The new contributions will raise about £76 million in the first full financial year.
The Bill implements, as regards the industrial injuries scheme, the Report of the Committee on the Assessment of Disablement under Lord McCorquodale of Newton. Similar changes are being made in the war pensions scheme by changes in the Royal Warrant. First, under Clause 6, a new increase of disablement pension is to be provided at the rate of £3 a week for people who are exceptionally severely disabled and likely to remain so permanently. The new allowance will be payable in addition to existing benefits, including constant attendance allowance, and will go to pensioners in hospital, who do not get constant attendance allowance, as well as those being cared for at home.

Mr. Arthur Tiley: The £3 a week is purely in relation to industrial disablement?

Miss Herbison: The additional £3 for those who are severely disabled industrially is contained in the Bill. Those who are seriously war disabled will be dealt with in the Royal Warrant. This £3 a week will be extended to old workmen's compensation cases also. It is estimated that perhaps 1,000 people will benefit from this.
Clause 7 arises from the Committee's recommendation of an increase from 60 per cent. to 70 per cent. in the scheduled assessment of disablement for certain amputations between mid-thigh and the knee. This change can be made by regulations for new cases, but the Bill ensures that there is also power to apply the new assessment from a current date to existing cases.
The opportunity is also taken in this Clause to give the Minister power by regulations to aggregate all disabilities under the industrial injuries scheme, under the workmen's compensation and other schemes for industrial injuries before 1948, and under the war pensions schemes, in deciding whether the test of 100 per cent. disablement is satisfied for payment of constant attendance allowance under the industrial injuries schemes. This will benefit a small number of badly disabled men who have been injured more than once.
It has clearly been noted that Clause 2 provides for the supplement to sickness benefit to be paid on top of injury benefit. The simultaneous payment of a National Insurance and industrial injuries benefit for the same contingency makes it necessary to bring more closely together the organisation of the two schemes. I am sorry that this has taken so long, but I think that the House realises the intricacies of this matter. There are many people who have to deal with this matter in the country outside who ought to get in as clear a form as possible the information that I am trying to give
Under Clause 5 the minor differences in title to and payment of injury benefit, as compared with sickness benefit, are removed so that a day of incapacity for sickness benefit supplement will always coincide with a day of injury benefit. The main change will be that injury benefit will cease to be payable for the day of the accident in most of the cases where it is now payable. The industrial injuries practice of disregarding work done on the day before the time of the accident will be replaced by the National Insurance practice under which a day is not a day of incapacity if more than a negligible amount of work is done.
Injury benefit for a day may be lost in up to 600,000 cases a year, but it is probable that in many of these cases wages, or wages less benefit, are, in any event, paid for that day. On the other hand, the provision for injury benefit to "link" with periods of sickness or unemployment will mean that in a number of cases injury benefit will be paid immediately where previously waiting days would have had to be served. Therefore, perhaps the one will help the other.
The essential justification for these changes is that these minor differences

between the schemes are already the cause of much administrative difficulty and would, indeed, result in further serious complications if allowed to persist when injury benefit and earnings-related sickness supplement are paid together.
The Financial Memorandum to the Bill and the Government Actuary's Report explain that the net result of all these changes is a small saving to the Industrial Injuries Fund. These are the changes I have been dealing with recently. This small saving does not, however, mean that less will be spent on the industrially injured than previously envisaged; for people receiving injury benefit will become entitled to earnings-related supplements from the National Insurance Fund amounting in a full year to another £6 million.
Clause 8 provides for the assimilation of the industrial injuries adjudication system into the national insurance system. The change is largely technical, since the same persons now operate as insurance officers, local tribunals and commissioners in the National Insurance and industrial injuries schemes. Existing rights of appeal—I stress this—will remain unaltered, but it will be much easier to adjudicate on what is known as a "hybrid" claim for National Insurance and Industrial Injuries benefits.
As a corollary to this, Clause 9 provides for the Commissioner and Deputy Commissioners, who are the final appellate authority under the two schemes, to be renamed as Chief National Insurance Commissioner and National Insurance Commissioners. This will avoid misunderstandings which have arisen, because there have been complaints that it was a Deputy Commissioner and not a Commissioner. Again, the change will not affect in any way the appellant's rights.
The day-to-day operation of the National Insurance Scheme brings to light from time to time the need for minor adjustments. The Bill contains, mainly in Clauses 10 and 11, several such amendments. Some alter beneficially the conditions for certain benefits. The remainder are mainly to provide for simpler administration of the schemes.
Apart from the changes proposed in the Bill, there are some matters of particular public interest and complexity in the


running of the present scheme which are particularly suited to consideration by the National Insurance Advisory Committee. It is appropriate to mention at this stage two such questions which the Committee is being asked to consider.
The first is the provision of unemployment benefit for people who have retired from their regular occupations and are receiving occupational pensions. There has been evidence in recent years that some occupational pensioners were receiving unemployment benefit when they had little or no real intention of seeking further employment. Many hon. Members on both sides of the House have expressed their concern about this practice. This is not to suggest that all occupational pensioners receiving unemployment benefit are in this category, because there are some occupational pensions which are so ridiculously small. Nevertheless, the whole question of occupational pensioners who retire from their jobs before the minimum National Insurance pension age seems to need detailed investigation and I therefore propose to refer this matter to the National Insurance Advisory Committee.
The second question which I shall send to the Committee is the earnings rule for retirement pensioners. Again, questions been asked on both sides of the House about this matter. This question was considered in detail by the Advisory Committee in 1956, but since then it has been able to consider the question only on the basis of draft regulations to raise the earnings limits which successive Ministers of Pensions and National Insurance have submitted to it for consideration.
It is thus, in effect, some considerable while since there has been any thoroughgoing re-examination of the working of the earnings rule, and because of this I have decided to ask the Committee to re-examine it very thoroughly. I shall, in the next few days, be referring the subject as a question to the National Insurance Advisory Committee with the following terms of reference:
To review the present level of the earnings limit for retirement pensioners and to examine matters arising therefrom; and to report.
I have given the Committee very wide terms of reference because so many things have got to be taken into account.

Mr. Charles Curran: I hope that the right hon. Lady will forgive me for interrupting her. We are all very interested in this. Will she make it clear, in connection with these terms of reference, that she will ask the Committee to give an up-to-date estimate of scrapping the rule?

Miss Herbison: It is not for the National Insurance Advisory Committee to deal with the cost. That is a matter for the Government. But there are many other matters that have been voiced both in this House and outside, and the terms of reference that I have given are sufficiently wide for the Committee to examine all aspects of this problem.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Can the right hon. Lady give me an assurance that the terms of reference are wide enough to cover the points raised in my Question earlier this afternoon, namely, the differential treatment of the earnings and the tax paid on other earnings, so as to place the position of a Schedule E taxpayer and a Schedule D taxpayer on the same basis?

Miss Herbison: Yes, as I told the hon. Gentleman at Question Time today, I hoped that the announcement that I was intending to make would satisfy him. The terms of reference are sufficiently wide to take in almost everything, including the specific point that has been concerning the hon. Member.
These terms of reference will enable the Committee to undertake once more a full—I stress the word "full"—examination of the working of the earnings rule such as the Committee last made in 1955–56, and to consider again points which the Committee then raised, as well as a number of new points which have cropped up since.
The Committee will, of course, have the opportunity of considering what should be the level at which the earnings rule should begin to operate and how this level should be adjusted for the future. It will also be able to consider whether there should be any change in the rate at which earnings above the limit result in deductions from pensions. I give some of these examples to show how wide the terms of reference are.
Other points which the Committee may well feel need investigation are the


methods by which earnings are calculated and the deductions from earnings which can be made, including the rule under which deductions from salary and wages under the P.A.Y.E. system are disregarded in calculating earnings, but other kinds of tax payments do not come into the calculations. However, it will be seen that the terms of reference are very wide indeed.
There is a good deal to be done here, but I am confident that the Committee will be able to produce in due course—I know it is a big job, but I hope "in due course" does not mean too long—a valuable report which will provide the Government with a firm foundation upon which any possible future action in this matter may be based.

Sir S. Summers: Would the right hon. Lady say what scope there is for the Advisory Committee to receive evidence to influence its decisions?

Miss Herbison: The Committee can receive evidence and, I am sure, will be delighted to do so.
I now come back to the actual provisions of the Bill, though I felt it was important to deal with these other aspects to which I have just referred. The Bill, as I said before, presents the first stage in the Government's plans to reorganise social security. In spite of its interim character, it provides valuable extra help for the unemployed, the sick and the widow.
I was interested on Saturday to note that the Leader of the Opposition made a most moving speech—and I stress that it was a most moving speech. But if ever there was an indictment of 13 years of Tory rule, that speech was it. Have the Leader of the Opposition and his party just discovered the plight of the grossly under-privileged children in our midst? Have they just discovered the needs of our old and chronic sick, and the insecurity of those women who give devoted service to their ageing parents? These blights on our society have been with us for a long time, but the Leader of the Opposition and his party failed miserably to do anything worth while to eradicate them during 13 long years of power.
The right hon. Gentleman will find that these parts of his speech are regarded by the country as merely an election gimmick and are not the way to deal with matters of such human importance involving the

suffering of so many of our people. At the same times, as the right hon. Gentleman says that the Tories, if they came to power, would do all these things, he and others are telling the country that they are to get real cuts in taxation. So it seems to me that wherever the Opposition speak, they are promising the people all this, and heaven too in the hope that the people will accept it.
There was another part of the same speech—I read it all very carefully during the weekend—which proves clearly that the Tories still believe in the "I'm all right, Jack" philosophy. It was in truth an attack on the Welfare State. I want to emphasise that I and the Government are conscious of how much still remains to be done in social security. In 15 months we have a record for which we do not need to apologise—indeed, a record of which we can be proud, a record of real improvements and achievements, against the background of the economic mess which the Tories left us to face. We are pursuing urgently the rest of our plans, but again I emphasise that some of these plans are dependent on an improvement in our economy.
I say not only to this House, but to everybody outside it: not only the Government but the whole nation must be involved if we wish to banish deprivation from the lives of the young and the old. It is only when the whole nation decides that this is its responsibility that any Government will be able to banish the poverty which still exists for some people and the hardship and worry experienced by our old people. I am never tired of stressing that the responsibility is the whole nation's, but the Government will shoulder their responsibility, as they have done so far, to eradicate as quickly as possible the human suffering and poverty that are still with our people.

4.40 p.m.

Sir Keith Joseph: We have had from the right hon. Lady something resembling a sandwich—and we make no complaint of that—with a very wholesome and large chunk of meat about the Bill in the middle. At first, the right hon. Lady gave us a blast on her trumpet about what the Government had so far achieved. We make no complaint about that. The right hon. Lady has a


perfect right to claim, and we acknowledge, the part which she has played in the continuing process, by all parties, of improving the lot of the people.

Mr. Heffer: Get on with it.

Sir K. Joseph: Did the hon. Gentleman interrupt?

Mr. Heffer: Yes, I did. I said, "Get on with it." I said that because my right hon. Friend has not continued anything. We have had to start afresh and that is precisely what we are doing.

Sir K. Joseph: The hon. Gentleman forgets that his right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government said of the last Labour Government that they cheated the pensioners. When we were the Government my right hon. Friends increased the pension five times and National Assistance no fewer than eight times. I am acknowledging the part which the present Government have played, but it is absolutely wrong for the hon. Gentleman to pretend that only the Socialists have played a part in improving the conditions of the people.
The right hon. Lady finished her speech with an attack upon what my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said in Birmingham on Saturday. My right hon. Friend said very plainly what the right hon. Lady has omitted to say, namely, that there is, as she must know, a vast and continuing job to be done. During the 13 years of the Tory Government, a great deal was done, but there still remains much to do. My right hon. Friend was calling attention to what remains to be done and what this side of the House will do when we are returned to power to tackle it.
The Bill embodies a principle which, of course, is accepted by both sides of the House, the principle of—I was about to say wage relation, but it is earnings relation. We welcome the changes involved by the Bill and those being introduced in parallel by the Royal Warrant. We shall do what we can to help the Bill to reach the Statute Book as quickly as is reasonable allowing for proper debate of any Amendments which may be suggested.
We also welcome the right hon. Lady's announcement that she is referring the earnings rule to her National Insurance

Advisory Committee. I suppose that if, at the moment, the Government cannot erode the rule any further, reference to the Advisory Committee is at least something small which they can do, a small way of gaining virtue. The right hon. Lady said that the Committee had not had the earnings rule referred to it for now nearly 10 years, but she will be aware that since the last reference the previous Government eroded the earnings rule on two, if not three, occasions. It is a different earnings rule which is now being referred to the Advisory Committee, but we welcome the reference.
There were one or two rather startling omissions from the right hon. Lady's review of what the Government have achieved in social security. I shall draw attention to one or two of them, because the lack of the minimum income guarantee, which was pledged by the Labour Government unconditionally as one of the very first things which a Socialist Government would introduce, accounts for the relatively large number of criticisms which I have to make about the social effect of the Bill.
We appreciate the presence of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who is listening to the debate. We hope that his review of the social services is proceeding fast and that we may soon have a date when the country and the House will hear something of what is actually proposed. A minimum income guarantee, or something in its place, is needed. We happen to think that the minimum income guarantee is probably not the right answer, but that or something of the sort is needed to bring the Bill into social sense.
We understand that the Bill has been given legislative priority because of the wish of N.E.D.C. to encourage mobility of labour. We welcome any help which can be given to the mobility of labour, but, as the right hon. Lady said, the Bill has emerged as not just an economic but as a social Bill. In fact, only about a quarter of the benefits will actually go on unemployment earnings-graduated pay.
If it is meant to be a social Bill, then there is a great deal in the social sense which is ill done. Let me acknowledge straight away that the Bill is broadly very useful for people with average earnings, or with earnings just above the average, or with moderate earnings just below the


average. Such people, even when they have families, will have no large loss when their earnings are interrupted because of unemployment, sickness or industrial injury.
But the Bill will give no help, or virtually no help, to people who socially suffer the most through such interruptions, namely, the low-wage earners, particularly those with large families. The right hon. Lady must be deeply aware of the sort of examples which I am about to quote. A man earning £11 a week, and with four children, will get no benefit from the Bill, because he already draws as much as 85 per cent. of his gross pay under the existing National Insurance Scheme. A man with £12 gross pay and with four children will, get an improved benefit of 8s. a week, while the single man at that rate of pay will get a benefit of £1.
I must confess that there are still relatively many long-wage earners, adult men on full-time work. I suppose that the efforts of the trade unions have improved the situation, but it would need a social historian to unravel whether they could have done more for the low-wage earners who, with a family of any size, still suffer household deprivation even when in full-time work.
However, we have to acknowledge the right hon. Lady's difficulties, because the more these people are helped by all social insurance the greater is the risk of making, for the few who may abuse the system, idleness relatively attractive. I do not want in anything I say this afternoon to exaggerate the relatively few who take advantage of any system of social insurance, but I am sure that the right hon. Lady will agree that there are a few and that she is concerned to minimise the temptation. Of course, it is all very difficult, but the amount of help which can be made available to the low-wage earning family man goes to the heart of a great deal of the remaining poverty in this country.
I shall try to make two comments on the Bill which, at first sight, may appear to be contradictory, but which will be seen not to be by those who are interested in the subject. On the one hand, there is nothing more for the family man on low earnings. Because of that, the right hon. Lady has been forced—and we

sympathise with her—to put the proportion of gross earnings which can be recovered by benefit as high as 85 per cent. so as to help the moderately paid man if she cannot help the low paid man. The Government will be aware that 85 per cent. is internationally a very high level. It may be right, but it involves a certain number of risks and a certain number of precautions have to be taken.
But as a result of the 85 per cent. level, which still results in a lack of help for the low-wage earner, the administration of the Bill will be very difficult. There will be the risk of quite a degree of evasion, large and small, and temptations will be put in the way of people. We must take that into account when we consider the Bill in Committee.
Having made that double criticism of the Bill—that there is no help for those who most need it and that as a result the help is pitched temptingly high for the rest of the community—I want to go on to deal with the position of the low-wage earner. We have to accept that low-wage earners with family responsibilities are financially in trouble whether at work, sick, or unemployed. If the wife can work it can make all the difference, but with a young family this is often not possible, and it is seldom desirable.
At work, the man can get no help from the National Assistance Board. If he is sick or unemployed then he gains little if anything from the graduated benefits, because of the earnings stop, introduced by the Bill at 85 per cent. If his needs exceed the benefits that he can claim under the Bill when he is sick or unemployed, and he goes to the Assistance Board he can get no help because of the wages stop. What the Government are doing is to introduce an earnings stop on top of the wages, stop. There is no minimum income guarantee or something equivalent to replace it. This situation, which the Government criticised when in opposition, is still unremedied.
We now have an earnings stop as well as a wages stop. The evil is not the earnings stop or wages stop in themselves. It is the low earnings. One only wishes—it is easy enough to say this—that the unions were more effective in protecting the relatively few, though still large number of adult men, in full-time employment who are earning comparatively little.

Mr. Heffer: Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that one cannot put the full responsibility for this upon the unions? The employers could give them better wages.

Sir K. Joseph: I do put a large amount of responsibility for this upon the unions, because they started as societies for helping the social conditions of the wage earner. Now, when they have such power they could use some of their bargaining leverage to help the lower paid instead of, as it seems to a layman, helping all evenly. I know that there are great difficulties—differentials are reduced—but this is a matter upon which one would have thought that the unions would place much more emphasis.
Wages do not recognise a wife or dependants, but social insurance must. I return to the right hon. Lady's strange omission in her catalogue of achievements—the minimum income guarantee which would have removed all of these criticisms. Maybe the Government have found that it was not practical and that may be true. We have grave doubts about its practicability. If this is so let the Government quickly and honestly come to the House and say that the idea does not work and what they intend to do about it. They must tackle what is socially, the most urgent part of this socially urgent system.

Miss Herbison: It seems that the right hon. Gentleman has not examined what the minimum income guarantee was to cover. It certainly was not going to cover the unemployed man or the man in full-time work.

Sir K. Joseph: I certainly have misunderstood. I thought that it was to make up all incomes below a certain level to a subsistence level. Perhaps I do the right hon. Lady and the right hon. Gentleman an injustice, because in that case they have not even addressed their minds to the most urgent social problem and I hope that they will get on and do so.
At the moment, there is not enough income, neither from work, benefit nor assistance for the large family on low earnings. We on this side of the House are pledged to cut through all these causes of primary household poverty, whether through work, sickness or unemployment, probably by a special allow-

ance for children in households affected. Our proposal removes at one stroke both the disincentive to work and the inadequacy of income, whether at work, sick or unemployed.
There is nothing in the Bill, and we have heard nothing from the Government, to help these people with the most urgent social need. Nor is there anything in the Bill to help the long-term chronic sick or the longer-term unemployed. We have in mind an invalidity allowance, or at least an extra scale of assistance for people who are dependent on public help for more than a relatively short time.
We welcome the improvement in the conditions for widows, but, again, if the hon. Lady had the advice of her hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mrs. Lena Jeger) she would know, as we know, that there are a large number of other improvements needed. The Bill misses a number of chances. So far as the Financial Resolution permits us we want to try and put some of these right. Our main criticism is of narrowness and missed opportunity.
The right hon. Lady batted very well against the obvious comment I wish to make, that she used the much-criticised graduated pensions scheme on which to hang her improved benefits. I remember that this scheme was attacked up hill and down dale by the then Opposition. It was attacked as a swindle, as a tax. Now the Government are gaily using the same scheme—we know that it is said only for an interim period—for their own legislation. Do not let the right hon. Lady say that the Government are not using the scheme but only the administrative framework. The Bill, as the Government made clear, would increase the funds in the graduated pensions scheme. There is a net income from the scheme, and I shall have a few questions to ask latter.
We are pledged virtually to abolish the graduated scheme when we return to power, because it has achieved its purpose. I wish to deal with those who are contracted out of the graduated pension scheme. Under the Bill they are to pay a ½ per cent. of earnings, between £9 and £30 extra each side, and this may range from anything to 1d. a week to 2s. 1d. a week. We want to know why they are


paying it. Those for whom it is appropriate will receive a graduated benefit when unemployed or sick, but as I understand they do not qualify for any extra graduated pension. That is correct?

Miss Herbison: No. Everything that comes under it, whether for the contracted out or those in, goes towards pension.

Sir K. Joseph: The contracted out will benefit by the accumulation of their ½ per cent. into bricks for earning the graduated pension. That is very interesting indeed and explains a further question. Perhaps the right hon. Lady or her right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will explain to the House the position of the person who is, virtually, paying twice for graduated sickness benefits.
There is a large number of such people, particularly in the public service, who have either a contributory or non-contributory pension and are covered against sickness for six months, or some months, at full pay. These people are to pay an extra ½ per cent. in order to get, so far as sickness is concerned, nothing. Their employers will save some money at the expense of the contributors. Have the Government any sort of contracting out in mind for such people or would the Minister, when replying to the debate, give us an explanation?
We remember the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Housing and Local Government warning that a Labour Government would make contracting out very expensive. They are certainly beginning to do so. Here is an extra burden on the contracted out for something that they may not need. There is heavy administration involved because contracted-out employers will have to collect the ½ per cent. per side per week when, at the moment, they need have no system. Perhaps they will collect this money only at the rate of 1d. per week for many of their employees.
I had it in mind to ask the Government why they should not have collected the money on a payroll basis. Now that I have been told that each individual contracted-out employee gets credit for contracted-out graduated pensions in due course, then I see that there is some method to their madness and that they

are forced, by this decision, to collect on a personal basis from each contracted-out employee. This is just another burden on the contracted-out employer. There is involved in this scheme a certain amount of redistribution against the men, many of them technologists and managers greatly needed by this country, who are earning over £30 a week.
I turn to the general economic implications of the Bill. I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Sir S. Summers) was right in reminding the Minister of the suggestions that the Bill may encourage voluntary absenteeism. Absenteeism can range from deliberate deceit, on the one hand, to staying at home a day or two more than might be medically justified, on the other. There can be no doubt that there is a certain amount of voluntary absenteeism, and there can be little doubt from the evidence that fairly generous sickness schemes tend to encourage it. By treating unemployment and sickness in the same way—perhaps the Government are right to do this, although some Governments in Europe treat them differently—the Minister is forced to set sickness benefits at the same rate as unemployment benefits and thus to make evasion slightly more tempting.
However, we acknowledge that the 12-day rule which the Minister has introduced in the Bill—the fact that graduated benefits are not available for the first 12 days of interruption of earnings—will substantially reduce this temptation. The remaining temptation will be that some people who are away sick may be encouraged to prolong their absence. It is an unfortunate coincidence that, due to the discussions and negotiations with the medical profession, the Bill should coincide with the relaxation of the certification procedure. We note the relative unhappiness of the Minister's Advisory Committee when giving qualified approval to the new certification procedure and that it asks for a review of the new procedure after two years. We are particularly glad that this will happen in the light of the slight increase to temptation provided by the Bill.

Mr. Ted Leadbitter: Am I to understand from what the right hon. Gentleman says that the new procedure, or the allowances, or both, are incentives to absenteeism? If so, is


it the Opposition's policy to alter the procedure, or would they reduce the allowances to remove the incentive?

Sir K. Joseph: Any sensible observer would agree that any sickness system must encourage the relative few irresponsible members of society. Probably both sides of the House agree that the more we deal with true family poverty by giving an allowance which goes to that family whether in work or out of work, the lower we need to pitch the graduated benefits. I do not think that this is a political point.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance (Mr. Harold Davies): Speen-hamland.

Sir K. Joseph: I hear the fateful word "Speenhamland".
We are all aware of the danger of subsidising earnings. He will not find that mistake made by this side of the House. We would want to review the whole situation once the Government, or we, have dealt with primary family poverty. As earnings and the capacity to save rise, the need for the highest level of graduated benefit diminishes. However, I must not be tempted into interesting footnotes.
I turn to the main categories of help dealt with by the Bill. First, I refer to unemployment. The Minister surprised me by saying that there would probably be only 110,000 unemployed affected by the Bill. However, it appears from the last issue of the Ministry of Labour Gazette that there were 180,000 unemployed males over 18 years of age who had been unemployed for more than two weeks. I do not know whether the right hon. Lady is predicting that unemployment will fall as dramatically as her figure implies. Perhaps the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will give us some reconciliation of these two figures when he replies. It is true that the graduated benefit goes only to those earning over £9. That may be the explanation.
In theory, the unemployment benefit should, ideally, be highest during the first two weeks of unemployment so that the man who is out of a job can, without any worry about the household being on his mind, go straight off to search for a new

job. By the 12-day rule, the right hon. Lady has prevented this help from coming until the end of the second week. It may be unavoidable if she is to stop evasion being encouraged, but it is unfortunate that at the time when unemployment benefit should be at its highest, it is deferred for two weeks.
Again, we make the point that there is no provision for longer term unemployment. If the Government are to succeed in redeploying labour as their economic policy demands, we must watch with great interest the number of people who change their jobs. Socially, the crucial issue is not the crude number of people changing their jobs, but the amount of time each one of them is out of a job. I wonder whether the right hon. Lady would convey to the Minister of Labour that it would be helpful to us if the Ministry of Labour Gazette broke down slightly more the figures of duration of employment. The figures of those unemployed for more than eight weeks are already shown repeatedly. It would help a great deal if the figures were broken down into those unemployed for more than four months, six months, and so on. The six months' category is the one which will apply to the Bill.
We note that the Minister is making a substantial change in the position for short-term working. We note, also, that she is allowing three years for both sides of industry to work out alternative arrangements. We are glad that she has said that she will consider the matter in 18 months. We warn her of the danger of upsetting the expectations on which employers have entered into bargains and on which they have based their costs. I am sure that she will be as careful as we want her to be in the question of costs on the industrial community.
I turn to sickness. We note sadly that the Government Actuary shows that there has been an upward trend of 8 per cent. since 1963. We note, also, that there is evidence to point to a rise in absenteeism and sickness when individual firms introduce sickness schemes, although in some cases that may be only a temporary rise. In cases where it is permanent, it may merely represent the true impact of illness. We cannot tell. But it involves more cost to the community in one way or another, and of that the Government must realistically be very careful.
We acknowledge that the 12-day waiting period will discourage evasion to some extent, but, again, the Government seem to have got their main strategy slightly out of order, because they are introducing graduated sickness benefit for just that period when more and more employers are supplementing the basic National Insurance benefits.
The trade unions came late to full awareness of fringe benefits. It is not for me to judge, but it is a fact that only recently, fairly recently, did the trade unions start to bargain for fringe benefits, whereas in America the unions bargained a great deal earlier. Nearly 14 million out of 22 million wage earners in this country are covered by private occupational sickness benefit. There is a vast variety of schemes in terms of qualification, amount, duration, waiting days, and so on. There has been a spread from the staff to the works. But, nevertheless, all public employees, staff and works, are covered by some sort of sickness benefit scheme, and nearly all private enterprise staff and well over one-third of private enterprise manual workers.
I do not want to exaggerate the effect of this because, owing to the duration of benefit, although probably 60 per cent. of workers are covered, it may well be that only a quarter of those sick at any one time are getting private benefit from their employers because their rights have been exhausted.
What will be the effect, however, of these two schemes working in parallel? First, there is the 12 days with only the basic benefit from the Government and any private benefit that may be payable. Half the total spells of sickness are for less than two weeks. These, therefore, are unaffected by the Bill. When the spell of sickness lasts for more than 12 days for the 60 per cent. who are in private schemes, we have to distinguish between two sorts of private help. There are, first, those private schemes which make up the insurance benefit to either full pay or to a fraction of full pay. In these cases, the increase of benefit under the Bill will save money for the employer. He will, presumably, have less to make up and he will, presumably, save money. That will offset some of the ½ per cent. that the employer will have to pay and that is welcome, I imagine, on both sides of the House.
Where, however, the habit of the employer is to supplement the benefit, presumably, as the benefit has risen, he may review the degree to which he supplements it. We must warn the Government that, in view of the extra cost that is imposed upon them, a number of private employers may review their private sickness schemes. This seems a great shame when already 60 per cent. of the country's working force is covered.
We realise that in many cases the employee gets an uncovenanted benefit, because what is made up is the basic insurance benefit and the employee often keeps dependant's benefit. All this may well be reviewed, however, in the light of the extra cost now thrown upon the employer.
Again, I ask the Minister, what about those private sickness schemes that are both contributory and contractual? What about civil servants, who are already covered for their sickness benefit for six months? They will be paying extra for less than the full benefit that the extra payment normally covers. Will any opting out or contracting out be allowed? While I admit that we on this side would regard contracting out of sickness benefit as probably too elaborate a procedure for the relatively small sums of contribution involved, there are certain groups of people who will be suffering as a result of this extra payment. We would like to have the Minister's comments about this when he replies.
Again, I draw to the attention of the Government, on this largely social Bill, that 35 per cent. of those who are sick have been off work for more than a year. Indeed, there are at present 135,000 who have been off sick for more than five years. The Bill does nothing for them.
As to sickness, it is an unsatisfactory switch-back that the Government have now arrived at, although, admittedly, on an interim basis. There is, first, 12 days on flat rate, then six months on graduated payment, then a reversion for the remainder of the time a person is sick either to flat rate or to flat rate supplemented by National Assistance. In some bad cases that may go on for years, if not for life. We on this side recognise the need for a higher benefit for chronic sickness or assistance, if need be, at higher benefit


rates to take into account the emptying of the cupboards that goes on when people are ill for a long time.
Perhaps the right aim is for the employer to be left more and more to cover the early weeks of sickness at his own cost with a consequent reduction in the amount of the ½ per cent. that the employer is asked to pay, but with the Government taking much more responsibility for higher continuing payments for the long-term and chronic sick. That is, perhaps, an objective at which we can all aim over the years without, so far as we can help it, adding to industrial costs.
I turn briefly to disability and industrial injuries. We welcome the proposed changes, including the extra £3 a week for the severely disabled. We recognise that there is no possible incentive for a man to get himself industrially injured, so that the fact that more is paid on top of the 85 per cent. maximum is probably no encouragement except that it makes the temptation of being sick for the man who is industrially injured slightly greater.
We would like to point out to the Government that there are now such a large number of anomalies between the treatment of the industrially disabled, the civilly disabled and those disabled in other ways that this is a subject that needs thorough review. We hope that the Minister will bear this in mind. We welcome the relief that is available for widows although, again, we could point to a large number of other reliefs which should also be considered.
I turn now to a few questions which I should like to put to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary. What of the position of the self-employed? They are not mentioned in the Bill. Many of them would welcome the chance to get some benefit when sick. Have the Government considered allowing them to opt in for sickness benefit in any way? Married women have an option. I recognise that there are many difficulties, but would it be administratively practicable to allow the self-employed to have a share in this?
How many extra staff do the Government expect to have to employ to cope with what, the Minister has fairly acknowledged, will be a big administrative task, particularly when an employee loses his P. 60? We agree with the right

hon. Lady that an employee can expect to get quick benefits only when he keeps his P. 60 and uses the procedure promptly. I understand that arrangements will be made to print suitable warnings on the P. 60 so that the employee retains it.
Finally, I come to the place that the Bill occupies in the National Plan. The chapter of the plan dealing with social security is unique in that it is based not on constant prices, but on current pensioners' benefits. That is to say, it does not treat a pensioner as it treats a doctor, as a recipient of a standard benefit. It measures the pensioners' benefits by the actual amount that the Government expect them to receive between now and 1970.
The National Plan allocates £387 million for increases in pension between now and 1970. Of that £387 million, nearly £80 million is taken by the Bill. Therefore, something like £300 million is left for the basic pension. I calculate that that leaves about 1s. 6d. per week per annum growth in the basic pension. I hope that the Minister will tell us whether the Government are saying that between now and 1970, according to their National Plan, the pensioner can expect to be only 7s. 6d. a week better off.
I repeat that we on this side welcome the Bill for its general move towards graduation, but that we deplore a number of its features and a number of its implications. It extends the wages stop, it introduces a new earnings stop and it does nothing, or very little, for the poorest who are already receiving less than National Assistance. It does nothing for the chronic sick, nothing for the long-term unemployed and it does less than is needed for widows. It uses the graduated scheme, which was so much attacked and which we shall be virtually abolishing, administratively.
There are a number of detailed points in the Bill which we shall try to improve in Committee, but we shall still give it as rapid a passage to the Statute Book as we can.

5.20 p.m.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: This is the first time since I became a Member of this House that I have had the privilege of following a leading spokesman of the Opposition. I


find it very tempting to follow him literally, and to counter some of his arguments, but I have a feeling that I might then be ruled out of order, because I understand that one of the things one is never allowed to suggest in the House is that a Member is hypocritical.
While I should not like to say that of the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph), nevertheless I think that in general terms—in dealing, for instance, with the comments made at the weekend by the right hon. Member for Bexley (Mr. Heath)—there is at least an element of insincerity in some of the statements which have been made by the party opposite.
If we look at "Putting Britain Right Ahead", which was issued in October last year, we see that really there has not been any great improvement on it, nothing added to it. It says, for instance:
We have designed a new and coherent social policy".
Well, we are still waiting for it. Then it says:
We would help local authority social services to be more effective by reforming their structure".
What does this mean? If it means a wee tidying up arrangement for overcoming hardship, then it would seem that no great thought or research had been done by October, 1965, in spite of the resources which Members opposite for 13 years had available for research. Further, it says:
When economic circumstances permit we want to see improvements in the welfare services in the home and other supporting services and we will take steps to seek out those needing help".
In other words, both at the weekend and today we have had merely a repetition of the same vague statements which were got together rather hurriedly in October, 1965. Just what was said at the weekend, and just what has been said today? The right hon. Member for Bexley is reported as saying:
In the years to come poverty in old age will be banished".
What an indictment of the election slogans of just six years ago when we were told that we had never had it so good. How cynical can people get when, six years after this line was worked out to win a General Election, we have this

admission that in years to come poverty in old age will be banished.
I dare say that it is recognised by now that I come from Glasgow, but in any case I want to mention the spokesman for the Conservative Party in Scotland, the Glasgow Herald, which echoes that in an editorial which says:
The long-term aim is an ambitious but essential one, the banishment of poverty.
The long-term aim! It goes on:
No State could reasonably afford to provide benefits on a scale which would promote automatic relief of hardship.
What kind of society is this we are living in, where we get prominent members of the Conservative Party and editorials in well-known Conservative papers talking in terms of the abolition of poverty as a long-term objective?
Members on this side of the House expected to have heard by now from the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East what precisely are his party's proposals. He did not give us any today. On this one point alone it seems to me that there is a general question of the sincerity of hon. Members who, for party political purposes, are prepared to exploit the poverty, the hardship and suffering in the community.
One other, practical, point. They also suggest that they will have new welfare officers—unspecified—who would be given certain tasks, one of them being the positive rôle of seeking out people in need. There is a very simple way to do that. It is to make available the information which is known to the National Assistance Board and the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance, and that includes the war pensioners. But consistently all Governments have refused to give this information.
When hon. Members opposite were in government they refused to give this information despite specific requests from really advanced local authorities like Salford, which were genuinely trying to do something to help the ageing population. Members opposite refused to give this information. I am not suggesting we should give it without thought, but what I am suggesting is that it seems to be a rather belated attempt by hon. Members opposite to be constructive when, in fact, hon. Members opposite, when


they were in government, had already turned down and rejected the very thing which now, when they are in opposition, they are arguing for.
Then there is the attitude, which we saw in the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East, when he was speaking today, that, somehow or another, the Conservative Party believes in encouraging thrift and self-reliance and a strong family community life. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] All right, but the implication is always that Members on this side stand for the very opposite. [HON. MEMBERS:"Hear, hear."] It is popular among Members opposite to suggest that we as a party believe in the Welfare State, and that is evidently meant to convey, according to hon. Members opposite, that we are layabouts and irresponsible people who succumb to temptations to get public money.
It is the kind of smear we heard this afternoon, but it is never specified, and even when one of my hon. Friends queried it no attempt was made to suggest how to overcome the source of it, if it exists, nor have we any evidence on what scale, if any, it does exist. But always the attempt is made to suggest that we are an irresponsible party, throwing public money away quite indiscriminately to help the loafers and the "no-users" in the community. Anyhow, at least we have made a start here by introducing this Bill, with the new principle of wage-related benefits.
There was another point arising from the speech of the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East, though I do not think that the right hon. Member was really concerned, as I am—and it is a minor criticism I would make of the Government—that so many people do not have one provision which even the poor old civil servants and employees, in the main, of the nationalised industries and other public service generally invariably have, certainly if they are non-manual workers, and that is, full sick pay for six months. That is a wonderful thing, and I think everyone should enjoy it. I do not think that it encourages malingering, but it enables a person to decide genuinely whether he or she is fit to return to work, without rushing back because of the economic pressures which can be put on if one has not a sick pay scheme.
I speak as an ex-malingering civil servant, according to some people. Nevertheless, we should be asking ourselves, why is it we always have to go to tremendous lengths to introduce a public scheme when, in fact, the solution is by law to compel the indifferent and inefficient employers to have some kind of sick pay scheme? Why should we not look at it from this point of view?
I wish some hon. Members opposite would ask their Conservative friends who run businesses of one kind and another, and who do not pay out a penny in sick pay of any kind, why they do not see fit to introduce some such scheme. This applies to the large and small businesses. In shipbuilding, the lack of fringe benefits is notorious. The shop owner is the backbone of the nation and sometimes of the Conservative Party, but he gets away with murder because there is not such a thing as a shopkeeper who pays sick benefit. [Interruption.] Certainly, in the large retail industry there may well be, but because of the unwillingness of hon. Members opposite to face up to the economic and political consequences of arguing for such a desirable scheme—

Captain Walter Elliot: The hon. Member has just mentioned the small shopkeeper as not contributing. Would he in that case agree with me on the Bill that it would be a good idea if he were given an option to come in if he wants to?

Mr. Brown: Obviously, the hon. and gallant Member has not been following what I have been talking about. I am not talking about the shopkeeper on his own. I am talking about the small shopkeeper who employs somebody and who makes absolutely no provision for his employee for sickness pay. I will not go into this argument because it is a bit more complicated than the hon. and gallant Member is suggesting.
I would like to express my sympathy for public servants generally, who will now contribute to something from which they will get no benefit. I appreciate that it is only marginal in the sense that for even the main range of civil servants it will mean that they will pay something like £2 10s. a year which will be a loss to them and, ultimately, a saving in sickness benefit to the Government and the various industries who have full sick


pay schemes. When critics of the Government talk in terms of the Bill being responsible for increasing local rates and the rest of it, I hope that they will take note of the fact that for good or bad, it will save money for local authorities who are more lenient in their sickness schemes.
I must confess that I am not altogether clear about the ½ per cent. being related to graduated pensions. I cannot follow how there is any part of the ½ per cent. paid by the employee and the ½ per cent. paid by the employer that will qualify anyone for graduated pension. Perhaps I did not understand my right hon. Friend properly, but I think that some amplification is necessary.
I am dealing with criticisms of the Bill at the moment, and another omission is that it does not make it clear whether any of the wage-related element will be treated as a disregard by the National Assistance Board. I notice that no mention is made of that.
However, all hon. Members will welcome the Bill because it is of tremendous importance, particularly to widows. Last week, the House was discussing crime. I would say from my experience that one of the subjects that need study is the problem of a widow with a young family in the strain and stress and emotional involvement of losing her husband. She may have a number of problems if, like so many wives, she is not used to making decisions and dealing with problems. Some husbands seem to do everything, God bless them. There are not many of them, but there are quite a few.
To a woman who, for one reason or another, is not capable of facing up to the problems of widowhood, this extension plus the increase of the wage-related part is a wonderful thing. I Would like to see it followed up. I think that there will be a saving in staff time at the National Assistance Board as a result of the increased benefits, and perhaps consideration could be given to whether it would be possible to devote more of the time of the Assistance Board's staff to welfare work on the problems of widowhood, sickness and long-term employment, pending the review of the wider system that is proceeding at the moment.
Hon. Members may criticise the Bill. It can always be said that it has taken too long to reach us, that there is not

enough in it for everyone or that one section of the population should get more as against what is proposed. We can all make criticisms. But at least it is a first hesitant step on the road towards wage-related benefits, and I think that it is the right road. I am not talking just in terms of the income guarantee, but in terms of benefits and the associated services generally. The next revolutionary step in the social service is long overdue and has been carefully ignored in the past 13 years. I hope that we are not stampeded into introducing the next step without giving it careful thought, and I do not mean cash benefits so much as making the necessary researches into the social problems, and putting less emphasis on the actuarial problems.
As I say, this is the first step along the right road, and I wish the Government every success provided they put forward Bills such as the present one.

5.35 p.m.

Mr. R. H. Turton: All of us who listened to the last part of the speech of the right hon. Lady and to the first part of the speech of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Hugh D. Brown) must have realised how unwise it is in this House to make party politics out of social security. We do not come to the House unless we are anxious to improve the social security of the people. We differ a good deal, and I shall today, but there is very little value in trying to score party points on this subject.
The hon. Member for Provan talked about the welfare advisers who are mentioned in our policy document. They are intended to deal with the problems of old people, and we have all had experience of the reluctance of old people to obtain advice or assistance. It is necessary in a modern welfare society to have officers going out from a Ministry of Social Security to the old people rather than waiting for them to come there, and I feel that the hon. Member for Provan would applaud that suggestion of ours, just as he would many others in our document.
I would like to congratulate the right hon. Lady on the Bill. Many years ago when I was Parliamentary Secretary in her Ministry I remember that a report came out from the Fabian Society on the


question of wage-related benefits. It was written by Mr. Brian Abel-Smith, and entitled "The Reform of Social Security". Having examined wage-related benefits in many countries of the world, he said:
Among the countries with flat rate systems are Sweden, Australia, New Zealand, and in part Norway—all countries with strong socialist traditions.
He summed up by saying:
It is for these reasons that payments for unexpected needs should be kept at the flat rate subsistence level.
Fortunately, we have all moved onwards from those days, and I congratulate the right hon. Lady on the progress.
I do not want to speak for long, and, therefore, I shall omit the praise for most parts of the Bill, with which I thoroughly agree, and concentrate on what I regard as the great weakness in the present Measure.
The weakness in the Bill is that it treats unemployment and sickness as similar kinds of interruption of employment requiring similar treatment. I believe that they are quite the reverse. In unemployment, the need is to try and give a greater measure of help in the very early period of unemployment, whereas in sickness the greatest need comes to those who are suffering from long bouts of illness or the chronic sick.
That was the great mistake in the Beveridge Report. Beveridge treated sickness purely as one, whether it was an illness for a week or for many years, and made no provision of any kind for invalidity benefit. He made one exception to that when dealing with Class II employment, and suggested that there should be no short-term benefit for Class II and that long-term sickness should be paid benefit at the same level as short-term sickness in Class T. But, fortunately, Parliament rejected that. I hope that we will look at this sickness benefit again to try to get it right, because I think that at the moment it is wrong and out of character with the social security requirements of modern times.
I think that the earnings-related benefit, when it is taken in conjunction with redundancy payments, is a wise and beneficial advance, but I do not believe that this is a good Measure when one is dealing with sickness benefit. As my right hon. Friend said, we are dealing

with three periods. The first is from the 3rd to the 12th day, when a man gets a flat-rate benefit. He then rises to the graduated scheme benefit until the 169th day, and then falls back to the flat rate. This will work very unequally and hardly on the long-term sick, the people for whom we want to try to find some better provisions than we have at the moment.
If one takes the figures for 1963, one sees that 4½ million of the spells of incapacity will not be covered by the Bill, that the next 3½ million will be covered, and that 162,000 will come outside the scope of this Measure as being too long. The Bill deals with only half the bouts of sickness, and there is this minority, the 162,000, for whom I believe hon. Members on both sides want to make better provision.
That brings me to consider the position of sick pay schemes to which the right hon. Lady did not refer. Last year, the Ministry of Labour carried out a study of sick pay schemes, and its report shows that 13 million people were covered by such schemes. What will be the position of those who qualify under sick pay schemes and also under the terms of the Bill? If the findings of the study are right, 45 per cent. of them provide full wages or full earnings up to a period of 13 weeks, which, as we know, cuts right into the graduated earnings benefit scheme.
The low-wage earner will be subjected to the earnings stop under this scheme, but what will happen to those who receive benefit under a sick pay scheme? Will they also be subjected to an earnings stop? If not, hardship will be caused to the low-wage earner, while a man who is receiving benefit under a sick pay scheme will be able to draw more than he gets when he is well. I hope that when the Joint Parliamentary Secretary replies to the debate he will be able to tell us whether there will be earnings stop under the sick pay scheme.
I wish that sickness benefit had been reviewed, and not brought into the Bill, because I believe that by bringing it in we will make it very difficult to change the Beveridge concept of sickness benefit, which ought to have been changed a long time ago. I see no reason why an employer should not be responsible for the first four weeks of payment during an


employee's sickness. I have held this view for a long time. I know that some people disagree with me, but I believe that a good employer should look after his employee during his first four weeks' sickness.
That is done in most industries. In the agricultural industry it is the invariable rule that an employee's wages are made up for the first four weeks of sickness. I therefore ask the right hon. Lady to consider amending the Bill in its later stages so as to give the graduated benefit over the whole period of incapacity after the start time, and not to stop it after the 169th day.
The right hon. Lady knows that the most hardship arises when the breadwinner has been sick for more than six months. He may be bedfast for months, and even years, with the result that his family's standard of living falls. It is cruel after the 170th day suddenly to say to such a man, "We will take away your earnings supplement".
If the right hon. Lady gave that concession, no doubt, in order to get her financial structure right, she would have to make the graduated benefit start later, but I believe that that would be an acceptable bargain. If, as I believe, the employer has an obligation to cover the first four weeks of sickness, the right hon. Lady could bring the start date nearer to the 24th day. If that were done, I believe that there would be no loss on the Bill. I believe that those who are ill for a short time, bearing in mind that 45 per cent. of them are already covered under sickness pay schemes for a short period, would benefit, and I hope that the right hon. Lady will consider this.
I would be happy if the right hon. Lady kept the Bill in its present form and made the graduated benefit continue without any change in the start date, but I think that there has to be a bargain, and I am certain that the Minister, more than any other Minister on the Front Bench, would not like to see hardship done to the most deserving of all, the long-term sick. I applaud what the right hon. Lady is doing for widows, for the war disabled, and for the industrially disabled, but I think that at the present time there is a great defect in the sickness graduated benefit scheme, and I hope that she will cure it.

5.48 p.m.

Mr. Ted Leadbitter: It is evident that during the debate we have had a note of apology from the benches opposite. There has been more than one indication particularly, from the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph), that this Bill is a continuation of some good work done over a period of years. I am the last Member in the House to minimise the efforts of any Government in dealing with social security allowances, but I must underline the fact that during the past 15 months we have heard more from the benches opposite about the needs of old people and about the needs of selected groups of the community than ever we heard when they were doing work for which I am willing to give them credit.
They went so far. From time to time they claimed responsibility for the Welfare State. They will not admit that they were pushed, and pushed hard, from behind, first by the Liberal Party and then, during a long period in this century, by the Labour Party. Never would they agree, when they were in power, that the real needs of the community ought to receive their attention.
On this most important Bill I am rather surprised that the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East has not been more forthcoming, and has admitted that my right hon. Friend, in line with a battery of Measures which have injected justice into our society, has brought forward a Bill which will be received throughout the whole country with a great deal of sympathy and which will be welcomed as a blessing by all those sections which it covers.
The right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East was in my constituency four years ago. At that time we had an exceptionally high unemployment figure. By 1962, one in every eight of the working population was out of a job. I had the unhappy experience, for many months, not only of trying to assist many men, but also to understand why the Tory Party of the day was indifferent to their needs. I thought that today we would hear more from Conservative Members in acceptance of the fact that for the first time something is to be done to assist people who have become unemployed—even if it be in a context different


from that which existed in 1962. We are no longer looking forward to excessive levels of unemployment. I hope that we are not looking forward to the kind of unemployment which was practically confined to certain areas of the country while other areas continued to exist in a degree of affluence.
The allowances that we are discussing are complementary to others which have been introduced in this Parliament. There is the Redundancy Payments Act, and the provisions which are related to the transitional period between one job and another, so that standards of living should not be harmed to any great degree and the ability to move from one job to another should be eased, with opportunities for training, so that a man's family will not be adversely affected while he is seeking to find a more useful place in society.
It is, therefore, with a great deal of enthusiasm that I welcome the Bill. It is only one of a whole bater of Measures. I shall refer only to four or five. We have had the Redundancy Payments Act, the rating relief measures, the Pensions (Increase) Act, the Workmen's Compensation and Benefit Act and the abolition of prescription charges. All these illustrate the emphasis which this Parliament has brought to bear in terms of social reform. No wonder the Tories are despondent. Look at the Opposition today! It is a pathetic sight. Hon. Members opposite are not used to being in opposition. We do not have to rush to support the Bill, because we know that it will go through. There is no opposition. Hon. Members opposite will not oppose, nor will they give credit where it is due. They are just a pathetic Opposition, in complete disarray.
Hon. Members need not accept my words as a test of that. Opinion outside the House confirms it. Even today's news has frightened the Opposition. I therefore suggest that when the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East welcomed the Bill, with reservations, he was in a very embarrassing position. He referred to a few of the usual fears. He talked of absenteeism. This problem was also referred to in an interjection while my right hon. Friend was speaking. I gathered from it, and from the contribution of the right hon. Member for Leeds,

North-East, that the Opposition have some kind of objection either to the procedures or to the allowances. Are we to gather that the allowances are so high as to incite absenteeism? If that is an arguable case, are we to take it, as a corollary, that the Conservative Party thinks that the levels of allowances in respect of sickness should be lower than the Minister has decided?
If hon. Members opposite will not accept this thesis, do they presume that there should be some kind of discriminatory power? If so, how do they suggest that power should be exercised? They should take the opportunity today to tell the country what they mean when they say that they fear that the level of proposed sickness benefit may produce absenteeism. If they object to the allowances they must say what kind of allowances, within the context of the present economy and wage levels, they would introduce in order to provide disincentives to absenteeism. I was rather surprised that the right hon. Member did not come to the "how" part of this serious problem.
I have here a document which says:
If the retirement condition and the earnings rule did not exist, there would be an immediate extra cost of about £100 million a year. Most of this money would go to help those relatively less in need, namely, those able to continue working full-time. Moreover, it is an inherent principle of the National Insurance Scheme that benefit is paid for interruption or cessation of earnings through sickness, unemployment or retirement, etc. To abolish the earnings rule would be contrary to this principle. 
That quotation does not come from a review in the middle 'fifties but from a Conservative document issued in 1964. In other words, the Conservative Party policy is not to abolish the earnings rule. I am surprised at the persistence of this argument and the appearance of some rethinking on the subject by the party opposite. There is the imputation also that the Minister's proposals to have an inquiry are not quite honest.
We must, therefore, test the honesty of the argument on the earnings rule. In this connection I would supply the following quotation from the same Conservative document:
Abolition of the rule for widowed mothers only, it is sometimes suggested, would cause difficulties and anomalies. For National Insurance purposes, they remain widowed mothers only while they have dependent


children; many would become entitled to the widow's pension when their children grew up. Difficulties would occur in changing from widowed mother's allowance to widow's pension if the earnings rule applied to the latter but not the former. Equally, if the rule was abolished for all widows, a similar difficulty would arise when widows changed from widow's pension to retirement pension at the age of 60. Either course would substitute new problems for the existing ones.
Therefore, when the earnings rule argument is applied to widows, there is hedging and an insistence that it should not be abolished. The test of honesty, therefore, is that it must be seen to be what it really is. It was the present Minister of Pensions who abolished the earnings rule for widows.
I have no doubt that, when the present Minister indicates to the House that, in the next few days, she will ask for this matter to be reviewed, she intends either to erode it to a point at which it is practical or get rid of it altogether. The costings which the Conservative Party applied in 1964 may have been realistic and, after the inquiry, the present Minister may not be able to get rid of the rule in this respect as she got rid of it for the widows. One thing, however, is certain—the present Minister will get rid of it quicker than hon. Members opposite, because they have no intention of doing so. Certainly, the present Minister will erode it to the point at which retired people will find it acceptable.
I hope that the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East and his hon. Friend who will be winding up the debate for the Opposition will not dwell too much on the earnings rule. Similarly, I hope that they will not dwell too much on the subject of absenteeism. It is a philosophy of my party, I hope, that we must legislate for those values of the community which take the majority into account. We are not here to pass legislation for the lazy, or for the man who is not concerned about his country. We are here to legislate for the majority. I am convinced that, when we discuss absenteeism, we are talking about only a few people by comparison with the whole of the working population. I challenge any hon. Member on the other side of the House to decry the great value of the British worker or to doubt his sincerity. I hope that no one in the House would rate the British worker lower than any other in the world.
I now come to the question, raised by an hon. Member opposite of the cost of the present proposals. I suggest, relating the term "cost" to the earnings rule, that, in 1964, this was something connoting fear. I hope that, when we discuss costings in terms of social allowances in future, we will follow the advice of the right hon. and learned Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald) and not make political points out of social security matters. The right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East said that the lower income groups did not benefit from the Bill. On page 127 of the Conservative document "Answers", published in 1964, is this rather illuminating statement:
The graduated pension scheme, which started in April 1961, enables the better paid to earn a pension more related to earnings…".
I have never seen, in any graduated pensions scheme or any other social allowances Measure of the Tory Government, a predominance of concern for the lower-paid workers. The graduated pensions scheme, which no one will deny is a perfect swindle, was not concerned with the lower-paid, but with those who were called the average paid worker.
If we cannot do all that we should for the lower-paid worker—I regret that we cannot and I hope that the Minister will keep a close eye on this very important problem—at least we should legislate in such a way as to provide for the majority of people in accordance with the capacity of the country' to deal with their needs. Under the Bill, taking an average family as comprising a man, his wife, and two children, with earnings of £18 a week, the flat-rate benefit will be £8 7s. and the supplementary, under the new provisions, will be £3. This is a considerable percentage increase—£11 7s. is not so great a drop from that family's average earnings as to put the family in the poverty line.
I should like to see it higher. I have no quarrel with the formula of flat-rate benefit plus supplementary up to a maximum of 85 per cent. of earnings. I regret, however, that our economy has not yet reached the state in which we can do all that we want to do, and which we must seek to do in the future. Another example is that of a family with two children earning £16 a week. They


would receive the flat-rate benefit of £8 7s. and the supplement of £1 13s., making a total of £10. I suggest, again, that such an average family on such an income would find this provision far better suited to them than any provided by past legislation. Of course, this does not take into account certain other allowances, particularly family allowances.
When we are discussing the important problem of social allowances, although it must be agreed that the right hon. and learned Member for Chertsey's advice that it is desirable not to make political points on such a subject is the ideal, the facts of life are exactly the opposite. The facts of life are exactly the opposite. This is a democracy, and the political parties determine the rate at which certain things are done in our society. When the Conservative Government were in power they claimed all they could for the little they did. I, as a Socialist, intend to seek the greatest credit for what the Labour Government are doing.
This is right, provided that in so doing we do not seek to introduce a state of affairs in which those whom we seek to help will in fact suffer. It is the clash of opinion between the two sides of the House that matters. What matters is the courage of one man on one side of the House or the other to say what he feels to be right. It so happens that the Labour Party govern the land.
In 1966, following so quickly on the promised priority of social legislation in the National Plan in September 1965, I am intensely proud that the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance has brought forward such a Bill, which, I am sure, will be welcomed throughout the land.

6.11 p.m.

Mr. James A. Kilfedder: I warmly welcome the Bill and the introduction of wage-related benefits. I appreciate what the Minister said about the war disabled and the industrially injured and her decision to refer to the National Insurance Advisory Committee the question of the earnings limit as applied to retirement pensioners.
At this stage of this Parliament I thought that I should be welcoming a different Bill—one guaranteeing a minimum income. However, I do not agree

with the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Hugh D. Brown), who said that the Bill was merely a first hesitant step on the right road. I welcome it, and although I should not call it a milestone, I feel that it is a step which follows the first step of the graduated pension scheme which got away from the traditional concept of a flat-rate benefit for a flat-rate contribution. I look upon the Bill as being on the right road to greater social security.
As a Member for a constituency which suffers from a constantly high level of unemployment and a considerable degree of sickness, and which has perhaps as high a proportion of widows as any comparable area in the United Kingdom—mostly war widows—I know from personal experience how much the provisions of the Bill will improve the lot of many people. I know what it means for a family suddenly to be deprived of the income which it has grown accustomed to expect—to be deprived of it by spells of sickness or unemployment or through the death of the husband.
This can deal a blow to a family from which it may well take a long time to recover. It may well be that the money coming in each week has already been accounted for by the wife in paying various expenses which occur quite regularly. The Bill in some degree helps to ease the plight of the family in certain circumstances.
In Ulster most people are workers directly connected with the land or with industry. If they are not directly connected with either, they are not far removed from them. Here I take up a point made by the hon. Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. Leadbitter) in his challenge to this side of the House about decrying the great value of the British worker. Most people in Ulster are workers.
I particularly welcome the earnings-related supplement to the widow's pension. The sick, one hopes, will recover; and the unemployed, one hopes, will eventually obtain some work. But the widow, encumbered with domestic difficulties and perhaps left with a family to support, cannot readily re-establish herself, certainly not immediately after the emotional impact of the death of her husband. For one reason or


another, some widows are never able to re-establish themselves.
I have noticed two defects in the Bill. First, I regret that one sizeable section of the working population appears to suffer rather badly. I refer to men and women who cannot obtain employment which lasts throughout the year—the so-called seasonal worker. They may work in agriculture or in hotels, or it may be that they are no longer active or not as young as they used to be and can secure employment only at a time of labour shortage. Such people are frequently able to work only for 20 to 30 weeks in the year.
These people are likely to benefit very little from the earnings related supplement, for, under the provisions of the Bill, the average weekly earnings are to be calculated as one-fiftieth of the reckonable earnings in the year from May to May. As a seasonal worker is entitled to benefit only during that part of the year in which he would normally expect to work, and as a seasonal worker's entitlement to benefit is to be restricted to the season, it seems to me that there is a case for calculating his weekly earnings over the same period. To divide his annual income by 50 when he works for only 20 to 30 weeks of the year is as illogical as to divide the annual income of the ordinary worker by 52. If the two weeks annual holiday can be excluded from the calculation for the average worker, why cannot the off-season be excluded for the seasonal worker?
The second defect of the Bill arises from an amendment to the existing Act which allows the award of additional days of unemployment benefit—180 plus 312, making a total of 492—as a reward for a good employment record. The Minister said that this is in line with modern conditions. No doubt, as she says, it will be an advantage in areas of great economic prosperity such as the south-east of England, but in development areas and in areas such as the City of Belfast, in which my constituency lies, it is a different story, because the closing down of a single large factory can cause long-term unemployment, certainly longer than the 12-month duration. This indicates a grave defect in the Bill.
I am glad that an attempt has been made to remove restrictions where a discharged employee receives holiday pay or compensation for loss of employment. This will help to encourage the mobility of labour which is so essential for the working of the National Plan. However, the opportunity might have been taken to lessen the burden of proof on a claimant who is caught up in a trade dispute at his place of work. Under present legislation, if an employed person is participating in, financing or directly interested in the outcome of a trade dispute as an individual or as a member of a grade or class, he is disentitled to employment benefit for the duration of the stoppage.
I realise that this is a difficult problem. The Minister might also refer this matter to the National Insurance Advisory Committee because the National Insurance Commissioners' interpretation of the word "financing" results in a number of disallowances of benefit where a worker's connection with a dispute is either remote or most indirect, and injustice is caused.
Another important point concerns the hearing at the local tribunal. It is the practice of the Ministry to prepare a resume of the facts and of the law for everyone concerned in the case. With the best intention and will, it is difficult for these submissions not to present the facts in a somewhat partisan manner, emphasising the opinion of the insurance officer and not doing full credit to the case of the complainant. These submissions could be done away with without any great loss and, in doing so, one would avoid the inherent danger of bias and there would be a considerable saving of the time spent in their preparation.
Instead, greater use might be made of photocopying machines. All the relevant documents in the case could be photo-stated and made available to the members of the tribunal as well as to the complainant, and they could also be given all the quotations from the relevant legislation and case law.
I welcome the Bill. No one can claim that it is a great advance or that it is legislation far in advance of its time. I look forward to further legislation in this sphere of social security benefits, in particular a minimum incomes guarantee or something equivalent to it. Only then will the nation really mitigate the poverty


which still strikes at a great number of families who are in receipt of low earnings.

6.24 p.m.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: I agree with the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Kilfedder) that the problem of workers involved, but not directly, in trade disputes requires speedy action. Although we have been given an assurance that the matter will be placed before the Royal Commission on the Trade Unions and Employers' Associations I hope that a more speedy result will be achieved, instead of our having to wait for a report from that body.
Many of my constituents, particularly those employed in the shipyards in Liverpool and elsewhere, are often faced with this problem. They sometimes find themselves not directly responsible for a dispute, remembering that such a dispute may arise from a demarcation disagreement in a shipyard. Despite this, they find themselves out of work and in an exceedingly embarrassing and difficult position. I urge the Government to consider this matter with all urgency, recognising that all hon. Members agree that something positive should be done to solve this problem.
I come immediately to the remarks of the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph), and in doing so I hope that my comments will not be considered to be party political points. A national newspaper of great repute recently stated that from now on every speech in the House of Commons would be geared to what it described as the forthcoming General Election. I hope that hon. Members will ignore that and will make speeches which are not geared to the coming election, whenever that may take place, but are designed to deal with the legislation and problems which we must tackle. The speech of my right hon. Friend the Minister was a model in that direction; and, within its limitations, the speech of the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East was equally a model in that strain.
The right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East commented on the important question of fringe benefits and the fact that the trade unions have been somewhat late in negotiating these benefits.

That is true and anyone who is honest about it will agree that it is true. Having established the truth about it, it is equally important to consider the differences in attitude between trade unions in Great Britain and those in America. We cannot suggest that American trade union thinking is identical or has ever been the same as that of our trade unions. British trade unions created a political party. Some people may not like to recall that but I, as a trade unionist, am never ashamed to think that the trade unions and a small band of Socialists created the Labour Party. Bearing that in mind, it will be seen that Britain's trade unions have always had a wider attitude to certain questions and have accepted that certain matters are the responsibility of the entire population. One such matter is the question of sickness benefits and payments.
I spent some time in America studying their trade unions and their thinking on this subject. I was told, in effect, by trade unionists, "We are concerned only with our membership." Many trade union leaders there boasted to me, " We have the finest sickness scheme". I asked, "What about those who do not belong to your union and those who can never join a union, such as housewives?" They replied, "That is not our responsibility. We are not bothered with people who are not members of our union".
In Britain, the trade unions are concerned not only with those who are in the movement, but also with those who can never at any time belong to a trade union. This is the basic difference between the thinking of our unions and that of the Americans. Before considering this matter further, we must consider this vital difference.
I agree that when sickness schemes are introduced and when 100 per cent. benefits—100 per cent. of wages—are paid, the question of absenteeism can arise and that, for a short period, particularly in the first instance, some people will abuse the scheme. One has to recognise that fact—there is no point in running away from it—but is not that because in the past, before such schemes were introduced, many of those workers remained at work, although they were practically dropping dead?
Before I entered this House I was in the building industry, and I hope that I


still in a sense speak for it—or, at any rate, for the workers' side of it. There are no sickness schemes in the building industry. The right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) said that most employers now have schemes which allow for the payment of sickness benefit. That is not so in the building industry. I know from my own experience of workers who have stayed at work when they should have been in their sick beds. Many of them have ended their lives earlier than should have been the case because they could not afford to remain in bed at home and get the necessary treatment. In discussing this matter we have to keep things in perspective.
I feel rather sorry for the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East today, because he has had very little to talk about. I had met the right hon. Gentleman before I came to this House, and I have always thought that in many ways he is far more progressive than a lot of those surrounding him; that he wants to move ahead sometimes when his colleagues, because of their reactionary thinking, do not want him to do so. If there are progressive Tories, the right hon. Gentleman is one of them—he is a rare bird.
That being so, I have some sympathy with him now, because what could he say of the Bill? He criticised it for what he called its narrowness and missed opportunity. That was really the essence of his criticism. On the other hand, hon. and right hon. Members opposite have had plenty of opportunities in the past—why have they not been coming forward? It is, therefore, difficult, I appreciate, for someone to criticise the Bill who knows that they have not come forward like that.
The Government, in introducing the Bill, have stressed the importance of mobility of labour and have equally stressed the humanitarian side. Coming, as I do, from an area like Liverpool, I can tell the House that it is the humanitarian side in particular that will be welcomed by the people of Merseyside. When talking to a constituent at the weekend about his problems, I mentioned this Bill, and he at once called it a magnificent Bill—he had read of it in the Press. His attitude was typical of that of constituents who have talked to me about the Measure.
The Government are to be congratulated on introducing such a Bill at this time despite the financial difficulties with which they are faced. Two categories of workers who will be particularly well served by it consist of those people who do not have constant, regular employment but are often unemployed for short periods—perhaps two or three days, sometimes two or three weeks. I can understand why the hon. Member for Belfast, West welcomes the Bill; he has in mind the same category of workers. No doubt they are among his constituents as well as among my own.
The categories are, first, building and civil engineering workers and, secondly, shipbuilding and ship-repair workers. Workers in the second group do not have constant, regular employment. They work on a ship, the ship is repaired, the ship sails, and the men are out of work for two or three days or perhaps longer. That fact is absolutely chilling to industrial workers. I know because I have suffered it myself, and it is still being suffered by workers in places like Belfast and Liverpool. This Measure will be of great assistance to those workers.
The Bill has weaknesses. I have expressed my view that the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East is more progressive than many others in his party, and I am glad that he is present now to hear me repeat that remark. He said that the treatment of the family man will need looking at again during the Committee stage. I think it unfortunate that the family man, perhaps with four children gets relatively less, because of his position, than the worker who has no children. The 85 per cent. figure for this lower-paid category of workers with large families should be re-examined, and I urge further consideration upon my right hon. Friend.
I know that there will be talk from the other side of the Chamber of feather-bedding. We will be accused of creating a situation in which absenteeism is encouraged. Let us leave out sickness at the moment and look only at the unemployment side because, to some extent, I agree with the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton, who says that there is much difference between the two conditions. If a worker absents himself from work on the odd day now and


again over the year his action will be reflected in his total income for the year. Therefore, his earnings-related benefit will suffer as a result of his absenteeism. In a sense, therefore, the Bill does the very reverse; it does not encourage absenteeism, but has just the opposite effect of making certain that the worker puts in his full time. I am sorry that employers' organisations have said absenteeism will be encouraged. That is old-fashioned and doctrinaire thinking, and I had hoped that the employers would have got away from it.
The Report of the Government Actuary states that the amounts paid
will be…by reference to earnings in the previous income tax year.
This is something else which should be looked at. It is too long a period and should be reduced to something like four months. The worker in the shipyard in Belfast or Liverpool, who, through no fault of his own, suffers periods of unemployment, at the end of the year will have much lower earnings than if his employment had been full and continuous. If a man or woman is sick for three or four months, taking into consideration that throughout the year his earnings are very low indeed, the benefit should be related to basic pay. This is very important. Do you get the point I am making?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must not drift into conversation with the Minister, but must speak through the Chair.

Mr. Heffer: This is a very important subject to me. I apologise, Mr. Speaker, but I wanted my right hon. Friend to get the point clearly.
A further weakness in the Bill has been largely overcome by the reply which my right hon. Friend made to a question I raised. When I first read the Bill and the Report by the Actuary, Clause 7 worried me considerably. I was much concerned that we might have a situation in which a worker was suspended by his employer, perhaps through no fault of his own, and then would have to wait for seven days before he received any benefit. I urge that even though it has been promised that this matter will be looked at in 18 months' time with employers and unions negotiating in the meantime, it should be

further looked at and consideration given to legislation. We are talking about legislation with trade unions, some of which I do not like at all, but there are other types which would be very beneficial and legislation could be introduced to overcome this difficulty.
I hope that because I have criticised certain aspects of the Bill, and suggested that some parts of it should be strengthened, it will not be considered that I am opposing the Bill. On the contrary, I think it a magnificent Bill, particularly as the Minister said that it was a first step on the road to complete reorganisation of our social security system. It is a wonderful first stage. Provided we eliminate some of the weaknesses and tidy up some of the matters we shall have made a serious contribution to revolutionising our social security system. If we go on in this way the people in the country will not only continue to support this Government, but will give them even greater support.

6.44 p.m.

Mr. Russell Johnston: I shall not exactly follow the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) in his final remarks, but I echo the welcome given generally to the Bill. I congratulate the right hon. Lady on the obviously hard work that she is doing in her Ministry. I welcome the emphasis she laid on the fact that this is an interim Measure, introduced with the intention of tackling at least some of the many complications and anomalies which, as she stressed, bedevil our social security system.
I did not altogether agree with what was said by the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton), who, unfortunately, is not now present. He seemed to suggest that politicians should not make political remarks and, as he called it, political capital out of arguments about social security. Social security and the way in which we approach it is one of the fundamental problems with which politicians wrestle. If we say "We do not think that what you did was particularly good", that is a fair sort of criticism to make.
I found myself in a fair amount of sympathy with the hon. Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. Leadbitter), who said that he was somewhat doubtful about


many of the criticisms which hon. Members of the Opposition addressed to the Government on their approach to certain social security issues. I find the same myself. Although there are individual exceptions, those who are tremendously interested and occasionally put questions about pensions and certain anomalies, one is still left with the question of what the Opposition said and did during their term of office.
Here we have a Bill concerned to deal with some of the problems of those who are less well-off. Like the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Hugh D. Brown), I read the speech of the Leader of the Opposition this weekend. I was amazed to discover that the rôle of the Conservative Party in politics was to overcome poverty. Previously, I was not aware of this. In my admittedly short political experience—doubtless this will be drawn to my attention—I have not encountered any man who would say that he walked through the squalor of the slums visiting the sick, talked to the unemployed, was appalled by the poverty he saw, and then rushed to join his local Conservative association. That is not what I have associated with the Conservative Party.

Sir K. Joseph: The point is that we have been accused that during the last 13 years we made too much of a song and dance about affluence. The hon. Member will recognise that we spread affluence to an unprecedented majority of the population, but there is still a substantial minority needing more money. To that minority my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition drew attention.

Mr. Johnston: While it is true that there was a period during Conservative rule when there was considerable general affluence, I as a Liberal criticise the Conservative Administration for complacency at a certain stage. There was a period when, as the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) will admit, it invaded Government circles and they were over-concerned with emphasising the fact that things were relatively good—as they were for a time—rather than concentrating attention on using that affluence to relieve the evident poverty which still existed.
I welcome the Bill generally. I shall restrict my criticisms, first, because I do not want to take up too much time and, secondly, because this is primarily an interim Measure and consequently one's criticisms can only be interim ones. I criticise, first, the length of time for which the extra benefits are to be paid, although I realise that this has been extended. Secondly, I tend to criticise the level of the benefits. Thirdly, I criticise the effect on the self-employed, to which the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East referred.
Fourthly, I criticise the effect on seasonal workers, which the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Kilfedder) has substantially dealt with. Lastly, I criticise the lack of provision to encourage occupational schemes. The hon. Member for Walton referred to this aspect. The Government have shown no enthusiasm for creating conditions to encourage employers to establish occupational pension schemes.
First, as to the period of payment, the purposes of our social security have greatly changed since the war. It is no longer primarily designed—I say "primarily" despite the continued existence of real poverty—to relieve desperate poverty. Its purpose today is, rather, to enable people to stabilise their standard of living in changed circumstances, to maintain the standard of living they have earned by their work, and to endure such breaks as they may be subject to.
A statement was made by the Government today about hire purchase. We know how many people are committed to it. Part of the object of these services is to enable some people to maintain such obligations. I know that there are economic limitations, but in absolute terms it is wrong that sickness and widows' benefits should be limited to six months.
The extension of the widow's benefit to 26 weeks will be widely welcomed. However, although this may be a wrong criticism to make at an interim stage, we Liberals believe that at the end of the day the object should be to provide a reasonable standard of living for as long as is necessary for somebody who has, through sickness or some other factor outwith his control, suffered an interruption in his employment. The discontinuance of widow's benefit after six months


causes very great hardship. We should pitch the expectation level higher, because the standard is always going higher. The object at the end of the day should be to extend the term of payment.
On the level of benefits, I should like to see some guarantee of a minimum of two-thirds of earnings, subject to a maximum. As the Bill stands, the benefits for sickness and unemployment will reach only two-thirds of actual earnings for a married man with four children. Others will not have similar benefit.
At the end of his speech the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East drew attention to the position of the self-employed, who are not to participate in this scheme. As the hon. Member for Walton said, many self-employed are by no means well off. Many of them earn as little as £9 a week. Small shopkeepers are not necessarily by any means well off. The Minister should see if there is any way in which these people could be allowed to participate, because it is very difficult for them to make provision.
The hon. Member for Belfast, West has substantially dealt with the problem of the seasonal worker, who is still in a very exposed position. In my part of the country, and in areas represented by my hon. Friends the Members for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe), Bodmin (Mr. Bessell) and Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Alasdair Mackenzie), who, I see, are present, tourism is a very important industry. In any area where the tourist season is short, there are people who are in a very difficult position. I know that it would be difficult to make provision for them, but I ask the Minister to consider the matter.
No step is taken to encourage occupational schemes. Liberals believe that occupational schemes should be subject to legislation to ensure that they provide adequate benefits. I know that many concerns run occupational schemes which are far from satisfactory. The Government should tell employers, "We would like you to provide voluntary occupational schemes, but we shall expect you to meet a minimum requirement, because we will then be in a position to encourage you". If there were safeguards of that type, provision could be made so that firms wishing to do so could

contract out and provide their own occupational schemes. This could not be done unless there were an agreed minimum.
I conclude by saying that I very much welcome the Bill. I welcome the priority which the Government have given to social security measures. I look forward to the results both of the social security inquiry which is proceeding and of the two references which the Minister announced this afternoon. I am particularly pleased that the right hon. Lady has referred to the National Insurance Advisory Committee the question of the earnings rule. We in the Liberal Party have consistently argued against the earnings rule. We did so at a time when the Conservatives were in power and when many of those who now sit on the Opposition back benches were perhaps less vocal about this question. We know that the economic situation might not permit of total abolition, but it might be possible to raise the level. I look forward to the further provisions which we have been promised.

6.58 p.m.

Mr. Paul Dean: Like the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Russell Johnston), I welcome the Bill, although, like him, I have one or two points of criticism. I was particularly interested in the hon. Gentleman's point about occupational schemes. I shall come to that later.
The general aims of the Bill have been welcomed in all the speeches. It aims to cushion the financial impact of short-term employment, sickness and widowhood. This is an agreed aim and the method of doing it, namely, relating benefits more closely to earnings, is also one as to which there has been a wide measure of agreement for some time.
However, it is difficult to tell whether the method adopted in the Bill is right. First, it deals with only part of the problem. Secondly, it is tacked on to a system which is out of date and which is generally agreed to be in need of reform. For example, it is not easy to judge the value and the rightness of the short-term benefits without knowing more about what the Government have in mind in relation to the longer-term benefits.
What happens, for example, when the earnings-related benefits are exhausted


after six months? As things stand at present, it looks as if there will be a considerable drop in income for most people who are still in receipt of benefits after the period of six months. It is true that the numbers involved by this time will be small, but, none the less, there will be people who are in real need and distress. Therefore, some indication of the Government's long-term plans, in particular what is to happen after the six months' benefit has been exhausted, would be a considerable help in trying to judge the merits of this scheme.
My second point is to question whether it is right to deal with these three categories in the same way. I am thinking now of the three main new aspects which have been introduced in the Bill—widowhood, unemployment and sickness. In the case of widowhood, I believe that this is essentially a long-term problem. I agree with the resettlement benefit for the early months and I welcome the fact that it is on a more generous basis and that it is much more closely related to the money which has been coming into the family before the woman concerned was widowed.
I feel, however, that widowhood as such should create an entitlement to benefit and that this should be an integral part of our arrangements, both State and occupational, for pensions schemes. It falls very much more into the long-term benefits than it does into the short term. I cannot see that we shall get rid of the anomalies and the sense of injustice which they create until we accept this principle as far as widowhood is concerned.
Turning to unemployment and sickness, I think that it is generally accepted that these are different problems. I am not convinced, at the moment at any rate, by the argument which is often used that they must be dealt with in the same way and have the same level of benefit, otherwise people would shift from one to the other depending upon which category would give them the better benefits. I am not convinced that this is an insuperable problem. If one looks at the obligations which sickness and unemployment create, I think one finds clearly that they are very different. In the case of unemployment there is no job and there is no employer. In the case of sickness there is both a job and an

employer but an inability for the time being to do that job.
I think it is no accident that in the case of sickness, private schemes are much more widespread than they are in the case of unemployment. I am doubtful about the allocation of priorities in this Bill, which envisages an additional outlay of something like £44 million a year on National Insurance sickness benefit, where private schemes are fairly widespread, but only about £20 million a year on unemployment, where private provision is very much more limited.
In the case of unemployment, I believe that this is the classic example of generous benefits on a national basis. One cannot expect private arrangements to go very far in this direction for the very good reason that it is at the time of unemployment when a firm is least likely to be able to carry people over and pay benefits for them. Of course, the new redundancy scheme recognises this principle by spreading the cost, as it were, through a flat rate contribution—in fact, a poll tax—to this scheme.
I wonder if the right hon. Lady has considered whether there might not be a case for treating unemployment, redundancy, resettlement and retraining which are involved under one umbrella. Has she considered whether it is desirable to have a redundancy scheme—admittedly it is a new one and has only just been set up—running up from one engine as it were, and a quite separate unemployment benefit running from another engine, with resettlement allowances and retraining arrangements again run in rather a different way? Is there a case for looking to see whether the whole problems of unemployment, redundancy and those matters which are associated with them would not be better treated under one particular national scheme which concentrates alone on these particular problems?
As to sickness, I agree very much with the point made by my right hon. Friends the Members for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) and Thirsk and Mahon (Mr. Turton) that here is a case where there is a much greater obligation on the part of the employer. I believe that there is a strong argument for saying that during the first three weeks or a month the obligation should be on the employer


to provide for sickness benefits on an earnings-related basis for his employees. This would cover something like three-quarters of all the spells of sickness and I believe it could be done more efficiently, at lower cost and also with more effective claims control by employers.
It would have the advantage, too, of leaving the State scheme more free to concentrate on longer-term sickness and other aspects which of their nature cannot really be effectively covered by occupational schemes. I should like to be told whether the Government have considered the possibility of a proposal of this kind and, if they have but have turned it down, I would be grateful to be told why that was done.
My second main point is that I am doubtful whether it is right to treat these three very different types of problem in the same way, which is, broadly speaking, what the Bill does.
My final main point is the one referred to by the hon. Member for Inverness concerning contracting out. The White Paper has one bold statement, in paragraph 16:
There will be no contracting out…".
The right hon. Lady said very little about this paragraph this afternoon. It is very strange that private schemes, which in the case of sickness cover over half the population, should be dismissed in the White Paper in six words with no explanation as to why this is so. This is one of the major weaknesses of the Bill. It was well expressed by the Daily Telegraph on 27th January, when it said in a leader:
It is one thing to make providence obligatory; it is another to prescribe that it shall be exercised through a single, State-controlled system. To do this is to attack the powerful, competitive incentives which have done so much to improve the standards of occupational provision.
I believe that there is a good deal in that view.
It is totally wrong to force people into State schemes when they are already adequately covered by private arrangements. There are several sound reasons for that view. First, the more one does that, the more one denies choice; secondly, the more one tends to get one's State schemes top heavy and rigid and therefore not so able to have the flexibility

which is required to deal with the whole vast variety of personal problems which are covered by our National Insurance Scheme. The third reason is that the State will not be able to concentrate effectively on real needs if we have a continuing expansion of State schemes. The philosophy behind the blanket universal State scheme is out of date and cannot produce effective social security in these days.
For a number of specific practical reasons it is a mistake not to allow contracting out. This applies especially to sickness benefit. The first reason is the existence of private arrangements. It has already been said that more than half of the working population, about 13 million people, is covered. Everybody in the public service and the nationalised industries is covered, both white-collared and manual. In private industry, most white-collared workers are covered and about one-third of the manual workers, and the process is growing. The schemes are expanding year by year.
The general pattern for more than half the working population is usually full pay less National Insurance benefit for a period, very often up to six months, and then half pay plus National Insurance benefit for a further period. Many employees get better benefits for longer periods than are proposed in the Bill and in many cases they do not pay contributions.
The nurses' scheme is a good example of the public service. After four years' service, nurses get four months on full pay less National Insurance and four months on half pay plus National Insurance, a cover for eight months. In the seventh year of service the periods are six months on full pay and six months on half pay.
What is to happen to schemes of this type? Will they continue to provide the same benefits as at present, or will the tendency be for these benefits to be levelled down to those of the State scheme? If the second is the case and the benefits are to be levelled down, because of the contribution which the employers will have to pay, that will be a strange way in which to encourage the recruitment of nurses and teachers, for whom considerable recruitment programmes are now in operation.
Whatever the effect is on these schemes, it will certainly mean that employers, whether in the public service or in private service, who are contracted out and who, therefore, do not pay the graduated contributions will have all the paper work involved in coming into the State graduated arrangements. To the extent to which good private schemes exist, they should have the chance to contract out as long as they measure up to the standards laid down and have the necessary policing arrangements which would be required.
The final practical point is concerned with claims control. We have heard a good deal about absenteeism and the effect, if any, which these new benefits are likely to have. There is no doubt that all of us, whatever our individual positions, know that the nearer benefits in sickness or unemployment approach earnings in work, the greater the temptation to all of us, aided by a loving wife, to give ourselves that little benefit of the doubt and to stay away a little longer.
In many cases, when sickness schemes have been introduced in firms it has been found that to begin with there has been a tendency for the sickness rate to rise, but then very often to flatten out after the scheme has been in operation for some time. Possibly this is partly because sickness which before was concealed, because a man could not afford to stay away for a sufficient length of time to get sufficiently well, has reflected itself in the scheme.
However, many occupational schemes have been able to evolve a fairly effective method of claims control. They have personal knowledge of the sick person and, very often, their own doctor who knows the person and the conditions of work—a very important factor in deciding when a person is fit to go back to work. Many have also evolved arrangements somewhat similar to the no-claims bonus with motor insurance in a variety of ways, for example, by allowing entitlement to be banked up if it is not used and in some cases graduated entitlement, if it is not used, for ill health pensions later.
Those are some of the factors in favour of these sick pay arrangements. One of the great weaknesses of the Bill is that it appears to reflect what is already being

done. As our social system evolves, I hope that there will be a position in which the State scheme and private arrangements can be complementary, the one concentrating on those areas of real need, which cannot be dealt with in any other way, and, over and above that, private schemes being encouraged to provide for an evergrowing number of people.
I want, finally, to refer to the earnings rule and the right hon. Lady's welcome announcement. She will recollect that with many other hon. Members I have been questioning her about this rule during the whole of this Parliament. I very much welcome the fact that she is now submitting not only the level, but the working of the earnings rule to the National Insurance Advisory Committee. I hope that when the Committee has done its work it will succeed in finding an acceptable way in which we can get rid of the rule altogether.
Whatever arguments there may have been in its favour when it was introduced in the early days after the war, their weight is now substantially diminished. After all, it has already been substantially eroded by the increase in the amount which can be earned and it has been abolished for the widow. The logical next step is to find an acceptable way in which to get rid of it altogether.

7.20 p.m.

Captain Walter Elliot: I have listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean) with great interest and I hope that he will not think it discourteous of me if I do not follow him. I want to make one or two points of my own. The hon. Lady catalogued, as did other of her hon. Friends, the increased financial benefits which have been awarded, in a variety of ways, by this Government. As she went on I scratched my head and tried to think of the things to which the Prime Minister was referring when I saw him on television the other night, beating his breast and referring to firm Government and all the unpopular things that it was necessary for him to do. It seems that these hundreds of millions of £s which were being spent were by no means unpopular.
It is right that at least one hon. Member should relate these benefits to our present situation. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour referred to


the country as "drifting and dreaming". During this debate I had a strong impression that it is perhaps we who are drifting and dreaming. What is the present situation under which we are debating this Bill? As the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour said, we have a colossal weight of new debt while we are still paying off our old debt. The economy is stagnating and prices are rising. Here is another Bill which is costing us £76 million. There is at least one thing which the right hon. Lady did not do but which was done by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy when he brought in the Pensions (Increase) Bill. At the end of his speech he struck a pose and said that it was going to cost, I think, something over £100 million and if the international financiers did not like it they would have to lump it. That very afternoon the news came on the tapes that they had lent us £1,000 million.
This money has to be found and we have to repay our debts. I welcome the Bill and I do not suppose that a single Member would oppose it. We all like to give extra benefits to the sick. It is a Government responsibility to decide the priorities and they had a long list of top priorities which have to be paid for. I listened with great interest to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), who is not in his place now and who always gets at us pretty fiercely, but speaks with intimate knowledge of the working side of trade unions. No doubt he has great experience. He admitted, I think, that some other hon. Gentleman on this side of the House had said that the unions had neglected their pursuance of fringe benefits. I agree wholeheartedly with that statement, and if he did not make it I certainly think it. The unions, and the employers for that matter, continually foist on to Parliament work which they ought to be doing. This Bill, as well as the earlier Bills, like Redundancy Payments, are really the job of the unions and the employers.
I must confess that I was rather surprised when the hon. Member for Walton compared American trade unions with those in this country, and gave what he considered was a good reason why British trade unions had neglected fringe benefits. He said that they considered not only their own mem

bers but the rest of the country. I do not have a vast number of trade unionists in my constituency but I am sure that many of my constituents living on small fixed incomes would not think that these great pressure groups, which have not only kept abreast of inflation but have actually got ahead of it, represented their interests.
It is because unions and employers foist on to Parliament work which they ought to be doing that we get bogged down in these sterile discussions of such things as whether these improved sickness benefits are going to encourage absenteeism. As we know, the C.B.I. had doubts. It thought that it might produce such a result. We also have the authority of Lord Robens who has remarked on absenteeism in the mining industry. It is right that those people should make these remarks. We discuss to the best of our ability whether it will lead to absenteeism. This is one of the dangers of centralisation because we are not in a position to do it. I certainly would not like to say whether it does or does not. We all know that there is a small minority who would take advantage of this, but surely the people on the spot, the employers and trade unions, are the people who know and who weed these men out.
I am glad that the earnings rule is being reconsidered. I view its being sent to a committee with slight concern. I have only been a Member of this House for five years and we seem to have been discussing it most of that time at one time or another. I hope that the committee will report speedily. In a way age can be looked on as a form of sickness in that it reduces efficiency in the same way as does sickness. I agree that in spite of past arguments the position today may have changed, but I do not think, as in the case of the widows, that the earnings rules should be abolished for everyone. If it is, then money will be given to a number of people who do not need it and a number of people who need it will not get it. I hope that the approach will be a sensible one and that the limit will be raised as high as possible.
The right hon. Lady referred to P.A.Y.E. I hope that it can be looked at and averaged over the year. Perhaps that is what she meant.

Miss Herbison: indicated assent.

Captain Elliot: I see that the right hon. Lady nods her heads. There is a very strong case for changing that.

Miss Herbison: Perhaps I should make it quite clear that the reference which has been given to the Insurance Advisory Committee allows almost anything to be looked at.

Captain Elliot: I am delighted to hear that. I hope that we will get a clear cut policy on the earnings rule as soon as possible.
Finally, I wonder whether the Minister has considered whether self-employed people should be able to opt in, or possibly be brought in compulsorily, to the sickness supplement scheme. Many self-employed people earn only small incomes. They are not necessarily self-employed to earn a big income. They want to keep themselves occupied and they like working for themselves, which I am sure is to be encouraged. Apparently, I misunderstood the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Hugh D. Brown) when I intervened. It seems that he was referring to employees and was saying that the small man should have a sickness scheme for them. Many self-employed people do not have employees. Many employ perhaps one or two people. I agree with the hon. Gentleman to a certain extent. If self-employed people were allowed to opt in, this would be a powerful lever to encourage them to produce a scheme for any employees they might have.
We are told that the Bill has two main purposes. The first is to assist mobility in industry. It seems to me that it will do that. We are told that the second purpose is social. Here the financial advantage is again to go to those who are currently earning and not to where I believe the need is greater—to the elderly, the retired and those on small fixed incomes. Any prosperity which we enjoy today is due just as much to the work of people who retired in, say, the last 10, 15 or 20 years as it is to those who are currently earning. Therefore, I question the social object of the Bill to assist those who are currently earning.
As I said at the beginning, in all these things we have our priorities. The Bill may be high on the list, but the fact is that many similar Bills have been

equally high. I view with grave concern, for whatever reason, these priorities which are increasing Government expenditure more and more in an economic situation which is fraught with danger for this country.

7.33 p.m.

Dr. M. S. Miller: The hon. and gallant Member for Carshalton (Captain W. Elliot) damns the Bill with faint praise. I believe that he is a member of the select community which has an obsession about making available to people something for which they have worked and which is in reality theirs. I find it most gratifying to be able to give unqualified support to a Bill of this kind, particularly in view of the current fashion to attack and even to denigrate schemes of welfare and social justice as though they were crimes against society. My right hon. Friend the Minister is to be congratulated on presenting a Bill of this description.
The Opposition's claim to have spread affluence is rather astonishing. It is more accurate to say that during their term of office the people became a little more affluent, often in spite of rather than because of Conservative policy, because of their own efforts and in common with what went on, but to a greater extent, in other Western countries.
Much has been made of the possible abuse of schemes of this description. I admit that when the Bill becomes law there might be an increase, for a time at any rate, in the number of people drawing sickness benefit. But I put it to hon. Members who may find this objectionable that this might be the bringing out of what previously was concealed illness among the workers who could not afford, and who at present cannot afford, to be sick but who should not be at work. In my experience in general practice, this state of affairs is not exceptional.
It has never been the policy, however, of a Labour Government to shy away from problems of this description. We believe that social justice demands that the vast majority of people who do not take unfair advantage of a service should not be penalised because of the possibility of abuse by a small minority. I should have thought that a considerable amount of sociological investigation needed to be made into problems of this description.


The Opposition should have done some work in this respect when they were in office instead of assuming, as they are too prone to assume, that working people are always seeking ways and means to abuse schemes of social welfare.
Again speaking from my experience in the medical profession, there are many checks to discover whether a man or woman is fit to return to work. In the first instance he or she requires a doctor's certificate. The suggestion that anybody who is fit for work can go to a doctor and receive a certificate is a slur on the good name of the medical profession. If members of the medical profession are harassed, as perhaps some hon. Members opposite might suggest, and tend to give certificates without looking fully into the desirability of doing so, I say again that the Opposition, when they were in office, were sadly lacking in not carrying out an investigation to attempt to solve the problem.
Even if people are occasionally so given a certificate by a doctor, they have another barrier to pass—the regional medical officer. If a worker has been off sick, often not for very long, he is called before a regional medical board. An independent examination is made and very strong recommendation is given to the doctor concerned about the individual's fitness or unfitness for work. My experience is that a very small minority of people are able, if indeed they try, to get away with the abuse which some hon. Members opposite appear to consider is the object of working people.
The Bill is one more step in the right direction. It marks a fundamental difference between the two sides of the House. It marks the idea which we have on this side that one should not, have to ask people to depend upon charity or to undergo what is, in effect, a means test before what they have worked for is given to them. I would hate to have a scheme operated by hon. Members opposite which depended upon their justification for giving people what they are entitled to.
I say once again that the Bill is a step in the right direction. It is one more step. The ultimate objective should be that there is no penalising of an individual because of illness or because of the mis-

fortune of unemployment. I hope that in Committee we will be able to strengthen the Bill and make it even better.

7.42 p.m.

Mr. Michael McGuire: My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Kelvin-grove (Dr. Miller) has said that the Bill is but a short step in the right direction. It is to some degree an honouring by my party of some of its pledges.
Much has been made by Conservative Members of certain features of the Bill which, they believe, will encourage men to pretend to be sick when they are not sick in order to get what, after all—and this is one of my criticisms of the Bill—will not be a very great amount. Under the Bill, a married man who has four children and earns £12 a week will be only 8s. a week better off.
It has been suggested from the Opposition benches that that will increase what hon. Members opposite believe to be an undesirable tendency for men to get something for nothing. Hon. Members opposite have an obsession with this. It comes out sometimes particularly from certain hon. Members who, if they want to pinpoint anybody, usually pick upon my colleagues who happen to work in the pits.
I am sorry to have to say that when Lord Robens was pinpointing absenteeism and its increase, and relating it to men qualified to receive sickness benefit, he made the point that as the social benefits increased, so, also, did absenteeism. We on this side have always maintained that absenteeism applies to man who could go to work but who chooses not to do so. We have never regarded the man who is sick or injured and has no choice in the matter as an absentee. When, however, Lord Robens spoke of men going off work—this was the only inference one could draw from it—to get sickness benefit and that the sickness benefit was almost as much as the wages, he was illustrating the poverty of the wages of some of the men in the industry.
The Tory Party use as one of their bogy men the question of paying men who are sick as nearly as possible the wage that they would get if they were working. As my hon. Friend the Member for Kelvingrove has just said, it is not as easy as it seems. When I was a branch secretary, I often had occasion to defend


men before the local appeal tribunals. It is a big indictment of doctors for anyone to suggest that a man can simply go along and say, "I have X, Y or Z wrong with me. Please fill in a form." As my hon. Friend has just explained, a man who is off work has to get past the regional medical officer. If a man has a record of going off periodically, he is the more quickly pulled in and he will soon be brought before the regional medical officer.
I pay tribute to the impartiality of the regional medical officers. Their job is to assess, when a man or woman comes before them, whether a person is unfit for work. I do not know the percentage of cases in which the regional medical officers agree or disagree with the doctor, but I would assume that they agree in far more cases than they disagree. In any event, a man who is off work has to pass the regional medical officer, who is liable to say, "In my opinion, this man is fit for work."
Very often, a man goes before the regional medical officer a fortnight or more after he first went sick. It might be the common complaint that we get particularly in the north of England of a man having a bad cold. The man might get word to go before the regional medical officer. The law provides that a workman can choose to sign off, because it is indicated in the notice which he receives that if he feels that he is now fit, he does not have to appear before the tribunal. That is the object of the exercise. It would be an abortive affair if a man went back to work and the regional medical officer then decided to find whether he was fit. The purpose of the examination by the regional medical officer is to ascertain whether his opinion reinforces or is contrary to the opinion of the doctor who has signed a man as being sick.
We know that a number of people suffer from illnesses which last, perhaps, only a fortnight or sometimes less. We are not saying that a man should not be off work because he has one of these illnesses of only short duration. Particularly in my area, in Lancashire, we must have the highest rates of bronchial and chest troubles. A man may be off work for only a short period. As my hon. Friend has said, many of these men are often forced back to work by economic

pressures, because the sickness benefit is too little for them.
In the pits, there have been scores of men who prematurely ended their lives by going down the glory hole when they were not fit to do so. They were far from malingerers. The reason why they went back too soon was that their sickness pay was not enough. At scores of funerals of our men, one hears people say, "He was a fool. He should not have worked on when he did. He did not even have the odd day off." I do not like the sniping by hon. Members opposite at the working class generally—because this is a working-class problem—in the sense that people will choose to stay off work because they can get just as much money when they are sick.
The only thing that I would say about the regional medical officers and the Ministry generally is that they are obsessed with the idea that this is a problem all the time of the working class or manual worker. It seems to be thought necessary for them to devote all their efforts to curbing the ambitions of men in the pits and in other categories of work to get something for nothing.
I want to leave that and to praise the positive points of the Bill. During the 16 months that I have been a Member of the House there has been a chant from the Opposition benches about broken promises. Naturally, hon. Members opposite do not speak of the promises we have fulfilled. I know they have great faith in the Labour Party, because they expected us to do in 15 or 16 months all the things they did not do in 13 years. I recognise this as a sort of back-handed tribute. One of the positive features of the Bill is the increase in the widow's supplementary, giving a widow 26 weeks instead of 13.
I want my hon. Friend, when he replies to the debate, to clear up this point. I think that the Bill provides that if a widow is already receiving widow's allowance because her husband has died, but not more than 13 weeks from the introduction of the Bill, she will have her allowance increased to 26 weeks. There is also provision in the Bill that if a woman is the widow of a man who was not retired, and the assessment of what he would have received is between £7 and £21, she will also get a further supplement. What I want to know is


this. Why has this not been given to the widow who is already receiving an allowance? We are to give a widow now receiving widow's allowance an extension to 26 weeks, but are we not to have this retrospection whether the husband was a non-pensioner or not?
I want to congratulate my right hon. Friend for honouring within a period of four months that part of the McCorquo-dale Report which recommended this increase outlined in the Bill, namely, the £3 increase to the men who are already receiving constant attendance allowance. It is noticeable that the Tories have not made any mention of our honouring that. It was not one of our election pledges, because we could not pledge ourselves to something a committee was reporting on. Nevertheless, we have honoured that speedily.
While I am mentioning constant attendance allowance I wonder whether my hon. Friend would clarify the reference made to making new regulations about a person qualifying for constant attendance allowance. I would infer from this that various disabilities are aggregated. Will a person only qualify when all the disabilities are industrial injury disabilities? I know quite a lot of men—pit men—who have been assessed as 100 per cent. disabled, but part of that 100 per cent. is offset by what is called natural condition; that is, if a man has bronchitis or something of that kind it is said, "You have a chest disablement of 100 per cent. but we consider that only 80 per cent. of it is attributable to industrial injury and the other 20 per cent. is a natural condition."
Sometimes, these men are severely disabled and have to have constant attendance. If they have not got 100 per cent. industrial assessment they do not qualify for the allowance. Is it the intention to widen this to include men who are 100 per cent. disabled as certified by the medical board's assessment, notwithstanding the fact that a certain part of their disability may be what we call natural condition? Is it intended to bring those men in?
Is it intended to alter the regulations whereby one can appeal on a decision about entitlement to receive constant attendance allowance? I think that I am right in saying that at present it cannot be the subject of an appeal, that it is

purely a medical decision and that one must abide by that medical decision. I am wondering whether these improvements will include, as I hope they will, the improvement that regard will not have to be had to the man's natural condition if that contributes to his disability. This particularly applies, as my hon. Friend knows better that I do, to miners. It seems foolish that, if a man has a 100 per cent. bad chest, some of that 100 per cent. disability must be offset because part of the disability is a natural condition whether or not that is aggravated by the industrial complaint.
I end on this note. I welcome the Bill as being a step forward in the right direction. It is true to say it will penalise nobody. It will make quite a lot of improvement. Unfortunately, in my opinion, it does not improve a great deal the lot of the lower-paid man, but it improves it slightly. I know that the Government will bring in the minimum income guarantee and the other features which we desire. I believe that the Bill is a stopgap in the sense that it will relieve some of the pressures on certain sections of the people. I look forward to the further measures. I welcome the Bill wholeheartedly.

7.56 p.m.

Mr. T. W. Urwin: In speaking at this stage in the debate I am sure that there will be one or two things which I shall be saying which have been said already. None the less, I sincerely trust that they lose none of their import because of repetition; and in saying that I feel that one or two of the contributions which have been made this afternoon from the Opposition benches might well have been reserved for discussion in Committee on the Bill.
I consider the Bill, in common with many of my hon. and right hon. Friends, to be the most radical change in National Insurance since the inception of such Measures. It undoubtedly will benefit many more people than any previous legislation of this kind. My right hon. Friend, at one stage of her speech this afternoon, made a tentative apology for what she considered to be the unduly lengthy time that she was taking to make her speech.
I want to say to my right hon. Friend that she had no reason at all to apologise,


because bearing in mind the importance of the Bill and its extensive provisions I do not think she could have done it in any less time, and in her simple, concise language she conveyed to us very clearly indeed what is involved in the Bill. I am sure we are all grateful, too, for the explanatory memoranda. Again, it is commonly a criticism we hear from the Opposition benches that material explanatory of a Bill has not been available in time in the Vote Office. On this occasion it was not only available, but also very helpful.
Not unnaturally, the Bill, being a Bill of this kind, has met with some criticisms from the Opposition benches. We have had the usual parody, oft repeated in these last 15 months, that, "We would have introduced a similar Bill had we still been in office." My hon. Friends on this side have drawn attention to that kind of utterance from Opposition Members. The right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph), leading for the Opposition, also indicated that while he welcomed the Bill he had one or two reservations to make. I will deal with one or two of those in a moment, but I noticed particularly that when my right hon. Friend made reference to the spate, almost, of legislation which has been introduced in this relatively short period despite the economic difficulties which we inherited after 13 years of Toryism he met with the usual sneers from the Opposition benches, and cries of "Repetitive utterances by Ministers".
My right hon. Friend and any others of our Front Bench spokesmen who feel justified, as they certainly are, in drawing attention to the shortcomings of 13 years of Tory Administration should go on doing so, because I am satisfied that at the end of 13 years of Labour Administration there will not be the same opportunities for criticism or for criticism at the same level as we have had occasion to make from this side.
If I may be permitted to deviate just a little from my main theme, which is the Bill being introduced today, I want to make reference to an utterance made by the right hon. Member for Bexley (Mr. Heath), the present Leader of the Opposion, and I regret that he is not in his usual seat. It is in connection with the inheritance which we took over in Octo-

ber, 1964. During a television interview in Newcastle just before Christmas, the right hon. Gentleman first of all claimed credit for the new upsurge of economic recovery in the North-East as being the responsibility of the Tory Government which had gone out of office.
He went on to say, when questioned about the economic situation which was left behind:
Don't forget people were afraid a Socialist Government was coming in. The opinion polls were running against us throughout 1964, so we deliberately expanded the economy, saying, 'Let's get the imports in before the Socialists get in, as they are bound to impose import charges'.
If that was not a statement of irresponsibility, I do not know what is, and I consider that it heavily underlines the truth of what has been so frequently said from these back benches about that particular legacy. In those circumstances, I suggest that my right hon. Friend was also perfectly in order in attacking the past Conservative Administration for their neglect and failure to improve social legislation.
On 31st January last, my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) asked a Question about the depreciation in money values with direct reference to social benefits, citing particularly family allowances and retirement pensions. On that occasion, in answer to his supplementary question, my right hon. Friend indicated that the family allowance of 8s. in 1946 had now depreciated to 3s. 11d. and that if the present retirement pension of 80s. had been applicable at that time, it would now have been worth 39s. 3d.
There is not very much difference between October, 1964, and February, 1966, in regard to those figures; yet we find that, despite the proper claim which is made by the Conservatives that they increased pensions and benefits five times during their 13 years in office, I remind myself that my right hon. Friend has repeatedly said from the Dispatch Box on this side that when she took office in October, 1964, despite all the protestations which had been made by the Opposition, they had made no preparations for implementing an increase in pensions.
Again I accept that the Conservative Party manifesto in the General Election of 1964 promised to improve sickness


and unemployment benefits. But, in view of their past record, I think that we are entitled to ask this very cogent question: would they have implemented their promise, bearing in mind their dismal record in this and other spheres? I suggest that we are entitled to question their motives.
The inconsistency of recent Opposition pronouncements to reduce taxation, on the one hand, and yet, on the other, somewhat paradoxically, their assurances that they will increase these benefits and generally improve social services, does not hold water. How can they do one and, at the same time, continue to do the other?

Captain W. Elliot: I am very glad to tell the hon. Gentleman. It is because one directs aid to where it is needed, and not to where it is not needed.

Mr. Urwin: The hon. and gallant Gentleman may well be correct in what he says, but, having regard to the figures that I have already quoted for the depreciation in money values, would it not be correct to assume that everyone in receipt of such benefits was in need of increases, rather than any particular section?
The fact is that we on this side are implementing the election promises that we made. But, as some of my hon. Friends have said, we cannot possibly be expected to carry out a five-year term of office and do everything that we promised to do in 15 months or however much short of five years the period of office happens to be.
The Bill is but a further example of the Government keeping faith with the electorate by introducing yet another Measure as a prelude to the introduction of the minimum income guarantee, which has already been referred to quite extensively.
I thought that the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East, found himself in some difficulty in leading for the Opposition. His speech was in the nature of both an apology for Tory inertia on the subject and a tribute to my right hon. Friend for producing a good Bill. He made a proper reference to the omission of lower paid workers, and I, like many of my hon. Friends, feel particularly con-

cerned about that exclusion, more especially as they are already handicapped by the wages stop for National Assistance purposes.
In his reference to low wages and what he considered to be a mistake made by the Government in excluding such people, in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) the right hon. Gentleman said that the unions are to blame for the situation which exists in this section of industry, that the unions ought to take the blame and that they ought to take action to remedy the situation and improve the lot of lower paid workers.
In my experience of industry, employers have consistently waged a highly successful campaign against these very people in the lower income groups, because they are the people who, generally speaking, have no bargaining power. Would it be in order for me to suspect that the right hon. Gentleman was advocating unofficial action by the trade unions to achieve that objective? Was he inciting them to take strike action against the very strong employers with whom they have had to negotiate for many years to improve their lot? The very nature of their employment means that virtually they have no bargaining power at all.
The right hon. Gentleman also referred, as did one or two of his back bench colleagues, to the new Measure possibly offering incentives to malingerers. That point has been adequately dealt with by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Kelvingrove (Dr. Miller) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. McGuire). But surely the House appreciates that a Government do not legislate for malingerers, even though it may be possible for such people to find loopholes in the system of certification which my right hon. Friend outlined. The legislation is aimed at reducing hardship for the majority of people, as this Bill will do.
The right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East again contradicted himself when he referred to the 12-day flat-rate payment period in the Bill as being a hardship to the newly unemployed. The fact is that this provision, by its very nature, could be a serious deterrent to the would-be malingerer.
It was suggested that as a result of this legislation employers may conduct a reappraisal of supplemental pay schemes in industry, that they may abrogate such schemes which have been negotiated between employers and the trade unions. Perhaps when my hon. Friend replies to the debate he will tell us whether, if this provision is not already in the Bill, it is likely to be introduced by way of an Amendment in Committee to ensure that the employers concerned in such cases have a statutory obligation to continue the supplemental pay scheme in the form of the former fringe benefits, rather than take advantage of this legislation to save themselves a good deal of money.
The extension of the period for the widow's allowance from 13 to 26 weeks has been given a broad and wide welcome. The loss of a husband, quite often after a long partnership of marriage, must, inevitably, have a shattering impact on a woman, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend had this in mind when she introduced this Clause. Thirteen weeks is far too short a time for a widow to readjust herself.
I wish that this legislation could go further and abrogate completely the necessity for widows, and indeed for anybody, to get from the State, and having on occasion to apply to the National Assistance Board for, supplementary benefits. I have had experience—as I am sure many other hon. Members have—of advising widows, after the expiry of 13 weeks, with regard to applications for National Assistance, and, indeed, on the necessity to register for employment to qualify for National Assistance benefits.
There are one or two provisions in the Bill which I am sure will be very much welcomed, not least the power to be given to the Minister to make regulations relating to the Industrial Injuries Scheme, the Workmen's Compensation Acts and the Industrial Diseases Acts.
I am pleased to note that it will no longer be necessary to put in the three waiting days after 13 weeks of unemployment or sickness in order to qualify for industrial injuries benefit. I note, however, that the provision with regard to three waiting days is to continue to apply in respect of sickness benefit, and I hope that at some time in the

future my right hon. Friend will find it possible to dispense with this requirement.
References have been made to drones and malingerers, but there are many more genuine people in industry, many of whom hasten to get back even before the three days have elapsed, and by doing so cut themselves off from any payment. They receive no wages for that period, and they receive no sickness benefit.
I know that at the other end of the scale there are many people who, once the period of sickness is extended to nine or 10 days, make sure that they qualify for the three waiting days by deferring their visit to the doctor to get a final certificate. I have met many examples of this in industry. I know that my right hon. Friend will tell me that it would cost a colossal amount to abrogate or dispense with this waiting period, but I hope that my hon. Friend will deal with this point this evening, or, if not, that the matter will be dealt with at a later date through another channel.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Tiley: For some years I have sat on the back benches on both sides of the House, in all their nakedness, looking down at my colleagues and opponents who have had the privilege of speaking from the Dispatch Box. I have always envied them, as I felt that they had something on which to lean and look composed, no matter how they were feeling, and somewhere to put their notes. But, standing here for the first time, I realise that the only advantage of speaking from the Front Bench is that the speaker knows that he will catch the eye of the Chair.
The House will be interested to know that I did not have to pass the 11-plus to arrive here. I understand that there is some selection, and no doubt hon. Members will appreciate that I am a late developer. Never mind. As Robert Louis Stevenson said:
To travel hopefully is a better thing than to arrive",
and I want my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench to realise that I am travelling hopefully.
I ought at the beginning of my speech to declare an interest in private insurance. Older Members know that I have such an interest, and, as we are fringeing a


little on private insurance, I think that it is best for me to declare that interest.
I am pleased to note the amount of interest which has been shown in the weekend speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bexley (Mr. Heath). It is obvious that he made a splendid speech on the social services. We are very glad indeed to see hon. Members opposite so interested in it, and to note that the national Press is commenting so favourably on the speech.
If I may say so without appearing to be patronising, we have had a very good debate. It has covered a wide field indeed, and no wonder, because the provisions outlined by the Minister touch almost every home in the country.
We have listened to some excellent speeches, and I should like to thank, first, my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton), who brought the debate back to the level which we have all wanted to see, because the country is sick of our arguing and making party points, both inside the House and outside it, on this important subject of social services. It may be dull both for spectators and for the Press, but the House is a very pleasant place when we are examining this subject dispassionately and endeavouring to find ways of improving our social services. It is extremely pleasant when there is a measure of agreement between the two sides of the House.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) said without equivocation that we supported the Bill. Of course we do. It was in our election manifesto as a promise, and it is promised again in "Putting Britain Right Ahead". To hon. Gentlemen opposite who decry those promises, perhaps I might point out that during the years of Conservative rule we carried out every promise which we made in respect of the social services. We increased pensions five times during those years, and I hope—and I say this sincerely—that the right hon. Lady will be able, within the economy of the country, to make similar improvements during the Socialists' period of government.
This is not new thinking. The Minister has not had a sudden brainwave. It is continuing work, and members of all

parties—and many thousands of people outside—have contributed to the growth of the social services of which we are all proud. We know that 13 million people out of the 22 million employed workers are already covered by sickness and accident pay schemes, and that thousands of smaller firms have arrangements for sickness and accident benefits. It is not fair to allege that the self-employed man in a small way of business is, in every case, failing to do his duty to his employees. Thousands are making payments without the enforcement of any prescribed plan for sickness and accidents. Dozens of friends in my own city have private schemes within their own firms, about which nobody hears.
If we looked up the record in this matter we should probably find that the people who originated this method of compensation were the leaders of our ancient friendly societies, donkey's years ago. We welcome the principles of the Bill and the sincerity of the Minister in presenting it. To present a Bill is a privilege which any hon. Member would like to have. If I were in her position I should take the Bill home and have it mounted in passe-partout and hung in my drawing room together with all the other Bills that I had introduced.
I congratulate the right hon. Lady on the way in which she introduced the Bill, because it is full of technical difficulties. We were grateful to her because, besides explaining it fully, she did not speak for too long. We all believe in the extension of these benefits and in the principle that the many should share the misfortunes of the few. It is right that these developments should continue by way of State schemes, where necessary.
The fact that we have welcomed the Bill and then criticised it does not mean—as the hon. Member for Glasgow, Kelvingrove (Dr. Miller) said—that we condemn it with faint praise. Almost every speech by hon. Members on both sides has contained a welcome for the Bill and, more than that, helpful criticism. Where criticism has been made it has been with the idea of improvement, and it is not damning with faint praise to do that.
The financial arrangements are appalling. It is a very complicated Measure, and all the complicated books for which the Minister is responsible will now contain several additional pages full of more


complicated provisions. I also congratulate the light hon. Lady on the fact that the book that was printed in September, 1965, is already out of date. What could be better for a Minister than to put out of date a recent publication with something which is better.
But how can the people—and we, as shadow Ministers or ordinary back benchers—begin to understand all these rules? When I first came here I thought that I understood them, because of my experience in insurance, but every new Measure that comes in persuades me that I know less and less about the subject. The position becomes worse and worse. The Bill is a bit of rag-bag of injustices, inequalities, and omissions.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton and my hon. Friend the Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean) pointed out that the Government are trying to deal with three problems in one Bill, and that it would have been better to have had three separate Measures. The three problems with which we all need to deal, whether in Government or not are widows' benefits, unemployment benefits, and sickness and accident benefits. All those are completely separate from each other. They present three different problems, demanding three different answers.
I would have thought that with the recent improvement which the right hon. Lady made in the widow's earnings rule we had got widows into a position where one Bill could have been introduced to deal with all their problems at once. We welcome the improvements made in respect of certain widows, but I ask the Government if this is what they have really promised. Every bite at the cherry and every improvement which is made in the provisions concerning certain widows makes the position worse for those widows who are left outside. This creates bitterness and a sense of injustice among those widows who receive scarcely anything.
At the moment, we have full earnings benefit widows; war benefit widows; industrial benefit widows; 30s. widows; 20s. widows; and widows who receive no benefit after 26 weeks. No wonder the widows are after us. The biggest injustice occurs as a result of the curious anomaly which has always existed and

which allows a situation to arise in which one of two widows, of the same age and in identical circumstances, living next door to each other, receives a pension while the other receives nothing at all.
The 1964 Act increased this anomaly. A woman who married at Easter, 1948, and who was widowed last year, at the age of 36, will now draw 30s. a week if she has no children under school-leaving ago. A woman married in August, 1948—a few weeks later—also widowed last year at the ago of 36, and also with no children under school-leaving age, receives no benefit. This is a serious injustice. We had an opportunity in the Bill to deal with the position of all widows and to clear up that injustice once and for all. The Bill does nothing to solve the problem of 40,000 of those widows.

Miss Herbison: Is the hon. Member saying that since we found it impossible to deal with all the anomalies relating to widows—and how right he was to say that the widows were after us; they have been after us for a long time—but found that we could do something for some widows, we nevertheless ought not to have done anything?

Mr. Tiley: I take the right hon. Lady's point, but we have now arrived at a position, with the improvement made some months ago, when the anomalies could be cleared up without a great deal more consideration. In my view, it could have been dealt with now in one Bill and this injustice removed.
I come now to the second benefit, that for unemployment. As my hon. Friend the Member for Somerset, North said, we are dealing here with a completely different problem and subject: nothing like the same disciplines are needed in this respect. It has always been my experience that men want a job. We need to remove the fear not of short-term unemployment, but of long-term unemployment. That is the real cancer in a family's life—the effect which change alteration and redundancy might bring because of long-term consequences. It is a great pity that the Bill does not include some provision for this. Here again, if we had dealt with unemployment as a separate thesis, we should probably have encompassed that aim as well—

Mr. Heffer: Would not the hon. Member also agree that the short-term unemployment—that of two or three months—experienced by some casual workers is also a cancer, something which eats right into workers? Therefore, is it not equally important that that also should be cleared up?

Mr. Tiley: Having spent the whole of my youth in a textile area of Bradford and having seen my friends' fathers out of work for weeks and months, I do not need many lessons about the cancer of unemployment. It is the one thing which I shall never forget all my life.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Kilfedder) said, we have missed the chance of including a supplement in the Bill for longer unemployment. I have known malingerers in sickness and accident and I have a massive boast, because I live in my constituency, that, in 10 years, I have known only five cases of men who did not want jobs. Three of them had wife trouble and realised that, if they were working, their earnings would go for maintenance, one was a convict who had chosen an easier way of life and the fifth had 12 children and I felt that he was too busy to bother with another job.
As a matter of fact, he wrote a letter to me in which he said that the National Assistance Board was paying him 2s. 6d. a week too little. I sent a letter to the Board saying, "Here is a letter from your best customer, who is complaining". To its eternal credit, the Board confirmed his view—he understood this better than I—and backdated the payment and apologised to him.
The argument is quite true that what is right in the consideration of sickness and accident benefits is often wrong for unemployment. A different solution was required and a different Measure, which should be linked completely to the Redundancy Payments Act, would have been better. I am not damning the Bill with faint praise, or saying what I am maliciously. The right hon. Lady would agree, I think, that it would have been better to carry out a complete study.
The third section deals with sickness and accident benefits. Many inequalities have been created in the Bill by the new Clauses. We are confronted here with a modern Government, of modern

thought, who are creating more mess in our legislation than we had before—

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance (Mr. Norman Pentland): This is quite a good speech.

Mr. Tiley: I am enjoying it myself. I have sat here all day, so why should I not?
Surely the moment has come when we should look again at the problem of the difference between industrial accident and industrial disease and the different benefits payable for ordinary sickness and accident. There is such a narrow margin. I cannot see the difference between benefits for a man who breaks a leg when he is knocked down going to his job and those for a man who breaks a leg at his job. A sillier example is the comparison between a man who slips on his bathroom floor getting ready to go to work and the man who slips in the toilet at his factory.
The old Workmen's Compensation Act idea is now out of date. Would it not be a good idea to include in the future review some consideration of the difference which now obtains between these industrial injuries benefits and the ordinary benefits? There have been many alterations in common law claims. Damages are much higher and it is possible for a man to sue his employer at common law with greater frequency where there has been negligence at his place of employment. We made it easier, as it was right that we should, for these claims to proceed by removing the defence of common employment and the defence of contributory negligence. Surely we might consider this point in future and simplify another area of these difficult technical problems.
We shall be spending a lot of money in future each year in dealing with many cases and yet, as hon. Members on both sides of the House have said, the really serious cases are still being left. The worst shortcoming in the Bill is that the saddest and most enduring cases are left out. In these modern days they should have been our first task. I am thinking of the smallest group of unfortunate people, those who are paralysed, by sickness or accident, those with chronic diseases, and I am thinking of the agony of mind in a young family, with young


children, when the husband has multiple sclerosis and faces not two or three years but a whole lifetime of agony. We ought to do something about these cases in Committee. If they had been included in the Bill everybody on both sides of the House would have gone home tonight feeling better.
The Bill contains some odd inequalities. From page 7 of the White Paper, it seems that a single person on a wage rate of £12 a week will get a flat rate of £4 benefit plus £1 earnings-related supplement, making a total of £5. A married man with four children will get a paltry 8s. supplement. Thus, we shall have £5 a week to keep one person and £10 4s. a week, including the 8s. and children's allowances, to keep six people. An even larger family will get no benefit from the Bill at all. Is this what the right hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) has been going broody about for so many months? Is this what he has been sitting on? By this time we should have had the pearl of his thinking. Something better should have been hatched out in the Bill.
There is an extraordinary position about industrial injuries. I am advised that the basic benefit under the Industrial Injuries Scheme of £2 15s. a week is not included in the 85 per cent. stop. This means that in the £12-a-week wage bracket a man with more than two children will get more than his weekly wage. Is this the planning which the Minister wants? The stop is either right or wrong. It should be the same for all. It is not right that it should apply to one family and not to another. Paragraph 3 on page 2 of the White Paper states that the benefits are
subject to a maximum total benefit of 85 per cent. of his earnings ".
Will the Minister comment on the wage stop?
In February, 1963, the Minister said of the wage stop:
There are many people today who because, of its operation are living below what even a Tory Government believe to be subsistence levels."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th February, 1963; Vol. 672, c. 89.]
I note that the Minister says "Hear, hear". We are now able to insert the words "below what even a Socialist Government believe to be a subsistence level".
We have been greatly interested in the way in which the graduated pensions Measure has been used to furnish the method by which the Bill will be implemented because it was not merely the benefits of that Measure which were decried, it was every part of it. HANSARD is full of illustrations by hon. Members opposite, both Front Bench and back bench, who referred to it as a scandal and a swindle.
The Guardian, that Tory newspaper, observed on 22nd January:
It is a strange turn of events that has led Labour to graft its new scheme on to the Conservatives graduated pension scheme which Labour attacked when in opposition, particularly because it would bring in a surplus to finance other parts of the State insurance scheme. The Government is now using the graduated pension scheme for the same purpose and is levying a new charge on those who contracted out of it.

Miss Herbison: Would the hon. Gentleman tell me how much of the £70 million which will be brought in will be used for any purpose other than to provide the benefits contained in the Bill?

Mr. Tiley: I will come to that later. I began by saying how appalling the financial arrangements were. I assure the right hon. Lady that I will deal with this matter later.
Other matters need clearing up. For example, is it absolutely certain that those who are contracted out and are now called upon to pay ½ per cent. of their wages, plus the ½ per cent. from their employers, will begin to have purchased for them a brick in the graduated pension sphere? My hon. Friends and I understand from our reading of the Bill that they will be paying into the graduated pension fund but, because they were contracted out, the only benefits they will get will be for sickness, accident and unemployment.
But the Minister said earlier that a small pension would also be applicable. That means, for example, that the teacher will get the teachers' superannuation fund, plus the State benefit, plus the collection of graduated contributions when the local authority has a graduated pension scheme. We would like this matter cleared up. It is odd to think that without Conservative planning—by way of P.A.Y.E. and the graduated measure


—it would not have been possible for the Minister to implement the Bill by next August.
The question of contracting out is important because on page 5 of the White Paper we are told that no contracting out will be permitted under this scheme. About 13 million people are already covered under sickness and accident schemes. What will be the position of these large groups of people who have these benefits within their contracts of service? The whole of the Civil Service, for example, is adequately covered. Even the men and women who prepared the White Paper are covered. Not a word about the consequences of this scheme and the bearing it will have on these civil servants have we been given. Nor have we been told about all the local government employees, nurses and teachers, and so on.
Under the teachers' scheme, for example, after the third and any subsequent year of service there is full pay for 69 working days and half pay for 69 working days after that. The teachers will, in effect, not benefit at all from this Measure. And what applies to the teachers will apply largely to the other large groups I have mentioned. An explanation of the position must be given. Do they all have to be dismissed so that new agreements, contracts of service, may be started? I suggest that it would be a bad thing to dismiss the teachers, because some of them might not return to the profession. Has there been any consultation on this scheme?
The odd thing is that just as there was pay-as-you-earn and just as there was the graduated Measure, there is machinery in being—again, thanks to Conservative planning—for contracting out. Many private schemes are insured on our insurance market. Did the Minister have any consultation with the Accident Offices Association to see whether it would have been possible to contract out most of the larger schemes?
The Government and hon. Members opposite always try, if they can, to "have a bash" at private insurance, but it is the envy of the business world, and people abroad support it as much as we do in our own country. The Chancellor of the Exchequer must be glad to accept the hidden exports coming from insurance.

The companies are all good employers, and insurance encourages saving and thrift. People abroad can never understand the criticism there is at home here of our insurance market. While almost on every occasion hon. Members opposite will consult the trade unions, they never seem to think of consulting these equivalent interests in the sphere of business and commerce.
I was very glad to hear the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Russell Johnston) mention the self-employed—he was the first hon. Member to do so—because there is no mention anywhere either in the Bill or in the White Papers of this great army of people. I understand that there are 3 million of them. They were not forgotten when the Socialists were drawing up national superannuation of ill-repute some years ago, when all their contributions were taken into account in the calculations. If the better benefits can be obtained, and we all admit this, by this mass application of contributions, it is a great pity that some thought was not given to the inclusion of this great number of people.
I am not thinking of the wealthy barristers, the wealthy stockbrokers, or the wealthy professional men—or the wealthy farmers, for that matter—all of whom are in the self-employed class. I am thinking of the thousands and thousands of little men. We can rest assured that the bigger units and the well-to-do will look after their own sickness and accident benefit by membership of private personal schemes and membership of things like B.U.P.A.
Hon. Members opposite always talk of attracting the small man, but do nothing for him. He is forgotten in the Bill, and it is difficult now to know how he can be included. I wondered whether he could not be given a 1 per cent. tax concession on his gross earnings—that is, the ½ per cent. from the employer and the ½ per cent. from the employed; allow the self-employed man to have a tax-free 1 per cent. on condition that he provided privately his own sickness and accident scheme. That is at least, an idea, a thought on means by which the self-employed could be brought into this arena of social service.
Many disturbed voices have spoken of absenteeism. I would tell the hon.


Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. Leadbitter) that I shall not deal with the subject maliciously, but it would be cowardly for any hon. Member not to admit that there is a real problem here. For instance, in page 4, paragraph 7 of Comnd. 2884, the Government Actuary states:
Sickness has increased since 1963 and is now about 8 per cent. above the average…
That was one of the years when the benefits were increased. We had another increase in 1965. I wonder whether figures are available for the nine months showing the trend of sicmkness benefit during 1965. We are entitled to know the basis of costing in calculating the ½ per cent.
I have a great regard for actuaries, but I can never understand the intricacies of their work and only with difficulty can I understand the outcome of their work. They are apt to look at facts without emotion. A story was told about an arithmetic question asked by a teacher of a class of boys. The teacher asked, "If there were 100 sheep in a field and 10 went out, how many would be left?" A little boy answered "None". When the teacher disagreed, the boy said, "You may know arithmetic, but you don't know sheep." Actuaries are a little like that in looking at figures without emotion.
There is great concern in industry about this problem. Someone has referred to Lord Robens. He is a very courageous public man. We had no doubt about the statement he made and which was reported in the Daily Telegraph. It was that miners' absenteesism covered by a doctors' certificates had risen from 10·1 per cent. in 1964 to 11·7 per cent. last year. This sudden rise could be explained only by improved social benefit payments. Nothing malicious was being said about the men referred to in that statement. People were wrong to attribute to Lord Robens any maliciousness in the point he was making. The increase may be absolutely genuine.
This problem does not arise only in nationalised industry. All leaders in industry are perturbed about loss of production. The great Leyland company, in the private sector, had to make changes recently because of the incidence of absence through sickness; and I.C.I, and other great companies which run these schemes are much concerned about the

problem. So far we have relied on the medical profession for a check, but, as the hon. Member for Kelvingrove said, we ought to understand that they are very busy. This is no reflection on doctors, Prescription charges have been abolished and that has made doctors busier. We are about to begin a new system whereby medical certificates can be issued for more than two weeks at a time. I ask the Minister if this is the appropriate moment, in view of the satisfactory increases, for medical certificates to be issued for three weeks, which would give one week at the extra benefit. That is taking a risk. Is it wise to do that now?
We on this side of the House were challenged to say how we would deal with this problem. There are two methods. Could we have bonuses for not claiming? A bonus is given for not claiming pensions at age 65 by increasing the pension. There seem to be two ways worthy of consideration. I wonder whether the Minister has thought of them. Could we build up a period of benefit beyond six months for those who do not claim in any one year? I want to bring some discipline into the great experiment which is taking place.
Secondly, could we give an extra pension at 65 on retirement for each year of freedom from claims? The greatest discipline of all is to emphasise the fact, from both sides of the House, that we ourselves pay these benefits and the more we claim the more they will cost. The money, even the employers' proportion, comes out of the earnings of those who are working because the profits are there only as a result of the work of the man at the bench, in the shop, or in the warehouse.
We all benefit from this scheme, not only those who receive the accident, sickness or unemployment benefit. We all benefit from this social service, because it gives all of us peace of mind. We have the right, as politicians and as leaders on both sides of the House, to ensure that there is no abuse. We can have these schemes only if we work and pay for them.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Carshalton (Captain W. Elliot) made a very important point here. We are giving ourselves new benefits at this moment which in effect, judging by the figures of production, are not being


earned. None of us often boasts about spending money which we do not earn, but the Minister did on the eve of the famous by-election in "North Hell", I will call it. I have a draft of the speech, in which the right hon. Lady said this:
The worker and the employer will pay just over a penny a week on each pound of their earnings, and these contributions will completely pay for these new benefits.
It is a great disservice to the whole field of social service to drop a dose of the soft, soothing, sickly, syrupy, sentiment. The words "just over a penny" give the impression of something for nothing, something on the cheap. These are famous last words before bankruptcy.
The job of all of us should be to emphasise the cost of these schemes. Industry will contribute £38 million more in the first full year in its pennies. Ministers and all of us—I apply this to both sides of the House—do a great disservice when we preach that these things cost nothing. The £38 million is a rise for each person free of tax, and it must be earned in the future. When politicians pretend that they have something to give, they are pretending on a false premise, because they have nothing to give.
When I think of the extra millions, in addition to the £38 million, which during the last year had been imposed on industry, I begin to fear for the future of our exports. The only effect of doing this is to make the listening public softer. We want to persuade them that this is a benefit which comes from the result of hard work.

Mr. Heffer: Would the hon. Gentleman answer this question? Are you in favour of what we are doing or not, because you say that you are supporting the Bill but for the last five minutes have gone on grumbling and grumbling about the cost?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Roderic Bowen): Will the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) please address his remarks to the Chair?

Mr. Tiley: I am trying my best, in these final few minutes, to bring some common sense into this area of social service. It is no good any one of us pretending that these benefits have

not to be paid for. Of course I support them, but I have never advocated pensions increases in this House without saying, at the same time, that they have to be paid for. In our debates here we are surrounded, oddly enough, with deficits. I have never yet seen a Socialist with a surplus.

Mr. Sydney Silvennan: Does not the hon. Gentleman remember that he and all his party supported the Government's proposal a year ago to raise old-age pensions and, at the same time, voted against the means of paying for them?

Mr. Tiley: We have always supported those increases in pensions and we have always supported the increased contributions that were necessary. Every time we increased pensions in the 13 years of our rule we never failed to make people realise that these things have to be paid for. Oddly enough, on the front page of "National Superannuation", the middle paragraph, these words or something like them appeared, "If our old people are to benefit by having greater pensions, it can only mean that those of us who are working have to be poorer".

Mr. Silverman: Not all the extra money was collected in contributions. There was a Government contribution as well and that was paid for by an increase in Income Tax.

Mr. Tiley: The Government have no money at all. They only have the earnings from industry. It does not matter whether it is the employers' portion or the taxpayers' portion. It all comes from the efforts of the people.

Miss Herbison: The hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Tiley) is posing as a realist. He said that in the manifesto to which he referred it was stated that if more help were given to the older people other people would have to pay for it and give up something. That is exactly what hon. Members opposite have refused to face, because whatever increases were made during the 13 years of Tory rule, they have come from three sources—the employers' contribution, the workers' contribution and the contribution of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The hon. Member and the whole of the Opposition


voted against the Chancellor's contribution which was to take something from the other people.

Mr. Tiley: The right hon. Lady is quite wrong. The additional contributions paid for the increased pensions, and the figures are there in black and white to prove it. The odd thing was that in our period of government we never shrank from imposing higher costs on those who were working to pay for the extra pensions. It does a great disservice to do as the right hon. Lady did in her broadcast and pretend that these things are easily come by. After the Saturday night comes the Sunday morning, and the only way to get these benefits and extend our social services is to tell the truth about their costs. I expect the writer of the front page of "National Superannuation" has been given the sack.
There is no fairy godmother in this place. There is much hard work ahead of us, and the truth had better be told to the country if these benefits are to fructify in the future. We are very glad to support the Bill, and we shall do our best to improve it in Committee.

9.2 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance (Mr. Norman Pentland): First, I wish to congratulate the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Tiley) on his speech. I realise that he intended to make a thoughtful and constructive speech. He was concerned about some hon. Members on this side of the House making political comments and seeking political advantage. Then when he got to the middle of his speech he got lost completely, and did exactly what he complained hon. Members on this side of the House were doing, and sought to make political capital.
Nevertheless, I welcome the hon. Gentleman's speech because he and I have something in common. He speaks with a good old Yorkshire accent and I am going to speak with a good old Durham accent. At least we have a combination here, and that is quite a nice change.
I also agree with the hon. Gentleman that this has been a most interesting Second Reading debate, as we would expect on social security problems. Many

points have been raised. I have been trying to count the number of questions that the hon. Gentleman was asking. I counted up to 120 questions and then I got lost in the bog myself. Quite a number of points that have been raised—I think the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) and the hon. Member for Bradford, West will recognise this—are more appropriate for examination in Committee rather than on Second Reading. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. McGuire), who asked a very important question about the industrially disabled, raised highly technical and complicated matters about which we shall no doubt hear more in Committee.
The general object of the Bill, to relate unemployment and sickness benefits to previous earnings, has received a wide measure of agreement throughout the debate. There may be more room for argument about the Government's decision to give priority to the reform of this part of our system of social security, although I was very pleased with the welcome given to it. I say at once that the Government committed themselves to short-term benefits for sickness, unemployment and widowhood on an earnings-related basis as part of the reform of the country's social security scheme in our election manifesto, as my right hon. Friend emphasised. The main reason why the Bill has been given priority is that earnings-related unemployment benefit is part of the programme, started by the Redundancy Payments Act, to improve the financial provision for those who have to change their jobs and so facilitate the mobility of labour which is needed in this age of rapid scientific and social change.
It must be given pride of place at a time when the economic legacy which we have inherited from right hon. Gentlemen opposite means that we must do all we can to improve efficiency. I realise that in some quarters there is bitter disappointment that other social measures have had to give way to this scheme. My right hon. Friend and I are particularly well aware of the concern of many hon. Members about the problem of large families with low incomes. I want to make it perfectly clear that the Government share that concern and are giving


the problem particular attention in our social security review.
However, the Bill has the limited purpose which I have mentioned and family allowances, paid from the Exchequer not from the National Insurance Fund, are thus outside the scope of these proposals. I can assure the House that the Government are intent on pressing ahead with their social security review as fast as possible in the light of the economic problems bequeathed to us and the need to work out in detail the arrangements required. I emphasise again that the problem of the low income worker is receiving our most urgent attention.
It has been pointed out that the contributions for the short-term benefits will be an extension of the graduated contributions for graduated retirement pension. The Government make no apologies for this. Our complaint has always been about the benefit provided under the 1959 Act and at no time have we complained about the type of machinery used to collect the contributions. We are opposed to the graduated pension scheme which was brought forward in 1959. No one was more forceful than my right hon. Friends the Chancellor of the Duchy and the Minister. We said that it was a swindle perpetrated upon the people of this country and we have so far found no evidence throughout the whole of our term of office to alter our opinion about that. It was a swindle then and it is a swindle now. But that machinery of collection is the only one which we can use if we are to start collecting additional earnings-related contributions next autumn. If we are to have earnings-related benefits we must collect earnings-related contributions.
What we shall be collecting under the Bill is barely sufficient money to meet the cost of the new benefits. It is estimated that in the first full year new contributions will raise about £76 million, against an extra expenditure of £77 million—£73 million on the new benefits and £4 million on the administration. This is far different from extending the existing graduated pension scheme. Our proposals will have the incidental effect of marginally improving the scheme. We accept that, since we shall be letting the new contributions count towards graduated pensions, even though they are designed

primarily to meet the cost of the new benefits.
This is as far as any similarity goes between what we are doing and the Tories' scheme. Even the range of earnings over which the contributions are graduated is vastly different. They are longer, and higher at the top and fairer all round. This is but an interim arrangement, pending the result of our comprehensive review of the National Insurance scheme. I appreciate the feeling that the Government could have taken this opportunity to recast the graduated pension scheme. The Government remain committed to reformation of the social security provisions for the old so as, among other things, to provide eventually a fairer system of graduated pension than that set up under the 1959 National Insurance Act by the previous Government. The introduction of the new provision for short term benefits is not a suitable occasion for such recasting. In the Government's view it is better not to tinker with the graduated pensions arrangements at this time.
Some interest has been shown in the categories covered by the earnings-related supplement for sickness and unmployment benefit. It has been asked why supplements do not apply to certain cases, and the question of the self-employed person has been raised by a number of hon. Gentlemen opposite. It has been suggested that the self-employed person should be brought within the scope of the new scheme. Self-employed people cannot be covered for unemployment benefit and therefore could not be brought into this part of the scheme. They are entitled to flat-rate National Insurance sickness benefit under the ordinary conditions. It would be difficult, at this stage, to extend the earnings-related supplements to them because the definition of earnings which is used is that assessable for P.A.Y.E. Income Tax under Schedule E, which, in general, covers only employed persons. This is in line with the position under the graduated pensions scheme which uses the same basis of earnings and which also excludes the self-employed.
The problem is that the earnings of the self-employed fluctuate sharply from one week or month to another and it is often difficult to determine quickly, after the end of the tax year, what their annual earnings were. It would therefore be


most difficult to calculate in good time both the contribution they are liable to pay and the benefit which they could receive. A further obvious problem is that the self-employed do not have an employer with whom to share the contributions.
The right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) asked about the long-term sick. The criticism has been made that we offer no help for the long-term sick. But the Bill has limited objectives—I am sure that that is recognised by hon. Members on both sides—to provide better benefits for the early months of sickness. This does not mean that we have forgotten those who are chronically ill. But provision for them must be studied as part of the general review, and this is being done.
The right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East asked for reconciliation of the figure of 180,000 unemployed for more than two weeks which appeared in the Ministry of Labour Gazette and the Government Actuary's estimate of 110,000 unemployed supplements in payment at one time if there were 2 per cent. unemployment. The short answer is that the 180,000 covers everyone unemployed for more than two weeks, including those who have been unemployed for six months or more and would therefore have exhausted their entitlement to earnings-related supplement.
Some interest has been shown in the debate in the rate of supplement. The Government decided that for a supplement paid on top of the existing flat-rate benefits one-third of earnings between £9 and £30 was the right figure. People earning below £9 already receive flat-rate benefits which are a high proportion of their earnings. Cover will be extended on earnings up to £30 a week, which is about one and a half times the average earnings of men.
Let me take the recently published figure of average earnings of men of £19 12s. for October, 1965. The proportion of one-third of earnings will provide just over half of "take home pay" for the single man with average earnings of £19 12s. He has £4 flat rate and £3 11s. supplement, making a total of £7 11s. We compare this with his "take home pay", which after deduction of tax and National Insurance contributions

comes to £14 16s. This means that he has almost half pay to take home. Married men will get £2 10s. extra for their wives, with further aditions if they have children.
To have gone further than this, either by increasing the proportion of one-third or by extending graduated benefits to earnings below £9, would have meant that with the significant increases of flat-rate benefit payable for dependants, benefit might have exceeded earnings in a significant proportion of cases.
I turn now to absenteeism, which has been referred to by more than one speaker during the debate. Here we find a contradiction. While some people are worried about the 85 per cent. ceiling, which they regard as being too low in some cases, other people are anxious about the high scale of earnings-related supplement. They say that it is too high because it might encourage a high rate of absenteeism. The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Sir S. Summers) intervened during my right hon. Friend's speech, the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East mentioned it and the hon. Member for Bradford, West and other hon. Members opposite, if I understood their speeches aright, expressed anxiety about the high ceiling for sickness benefit and the danger that absenteeism could be encouraged.
Absenteeism is a vague term which is usually taken to mean an odd day or two off work. When some people talk about absenteeism, they mean that men are absent from work for no good reason. This kind of absenteeism, as has been made clear by a number of my hon. Friends, including the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Urwin), the hon. Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. Leadbitter) and others, will not usually attract flat-rate benefit, since a person has to serve three waiting days after proving his sickness or unemployment before becoming entitled to benefit. Nor will it attract the supplement, for which there are 12 waiting days which are not repayable.
Secondly, before a person can obtain benefit, he has to show evidence of incapacity by producing a doctor's certificate or he has to register at the employment exchange and show that he is unemployed and available for work. Thirdly, as was emphasised by my hon.


Friend the Member for Glasgow, Kelvin-grove (Dr. Miller), another hon. Friend of mine from Scotland and my hon. Friend the Member for Ince, the Ministry has a system of controls to check doubtful claims for sickness benefit. I should like to give some interesting figures. During 1965, 818,000 sickness and injury benefit claimants were referred for an independent medical opinion to the regional medical officers of the appropriate Health Departments and 476,000 were visited in their homes.
Regardless of what certain people might think and regardless of what is sometimes written in the Press, frequent claims by people are far from being a problem. Of the 21 million people insured for sickness benefit, 70 per cent. make no claim during the course of a year; 20 per cent. claim only once a year, and 10 per cent. claim more than once, but only one-third of these claim three or more times. Most of these are genuine claims for benefit.
I therefore hope that people who seem to think that the British worker is always prepared to take advantage of increased social security benefits will pay full regard to these revealing figures, which prove that the vast majority of workers fulfil their responsibilities and obligations, both to the industry in which they work and to the nation at large. I think that that should be made perfectly clear.
Of course, the Ministry is well aware of the identity of the small number of claimants who are referred to as malingerers. They claim benefits frequently for trivial illness and injuries, but their claims are investigated and they are examined; we take steps to check their incapacity for work. It should not be assumed that they receive benefit every time they claim. Therefore, while the risk of doubtful claims has to be borne in mind it would be wrong to think that supplement, with the 12-day waiting period and with the 85 per cent. benefit ceiling, is likely to create a large new problem. For any cases which do arise, as I have said, the Ministry has a regular system of control.
The right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East talked a good deal about sick pay schemes run by employers, and he made the point that such schemes may have to be adjusted when their benefits

were added on to those provided by the flat-rate benefit and the new earnings-related supplement. The Ministry reckons—I know the right hon. Gentleman will take notice of these figures which I give both for his benefit as well as that of other people in the House—that there are some 10½ million people who are entitled to sickness benefit who will also be in the field for the supplement and who, to some extent, will also be covered by sick pay schemes. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned a higher figure, but I am informed that this includes people not entitled to sickness benefit—for example, married women who opted out of paying contributions. The size and the duration of the payments made under any sick pay scheme vary very greatly. In many cases National Insurance benefits are taken into account automatically; that is, they are deducted from the sick pay; in such circumstances the new supplements may cause the scheme's benefits to be adjusted.
It has also been suggested that an employer should be able to contract his employees out of the new earnings-related supplement as well as the graduated pension scheme and so make it unnecessary to revise his sick pay scheme. It would not be feasible to have contracting out of the earnings-related supplement to unemployment benefit because benefit will usually only be payable when the link between the employer and the employee has been broken. Arrangements for contracting out of sickness benefit would therefore, presumably, have to give employers the choice of contracting out of either the graduated pension or sickness benefit or both together whilst still leaving him with the liability for some graduated contribution to cover earnings-related unemployment benefit. I am sure the House will agree that this would be a situation which would surely be far too complicated for all concerned.

Mr. Turton: The hon. Gentleman said that sick pay schemes will have to be adjusted. I ask him whether the stop system would apply or not to sick pay schemes. Does that remark of his mean it will apply? Or will it not?

Mr. Pentland: Oh, no. Definitely it will only apply to the supplement in the sick pay scheme which we are now proposing.
I come now to another point raised by the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East. He asked about the cost of the Bill in relation to the limits for social security expenditure laid down in the National Plan.
When we were constructing the plan, we took full account of the expenditure that would be needed under the Bill, and both in Chapter XVIII and Chapter XXII we explained that priority would be given to, improved provisions on these lines for those who lose their jobs or become ill. We also explained how the total expenditure on benefits and assistance could best be applied, apart from the introduction of earnings related unemployment and sickness benefit on which the Government had already reached a decision, would need to be considered in the further stages of the review of social security.

Sir K. Joseph: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's partial answer to my question, but I also asked whether I was right in my calculation that having taken off the cost of the Bill there would be enough left in the National Plan figure only for an annual increase in retirement pensions of about 1s. 6d. per pensioner per week.

Mr. Pentland: We cannot understand from where the right hon. Gentleman gets his figure. We cannot accept that it is the true figure. What has happened here is that the prediction of the plan was based on 1965 prices. It has to be a flexible plan, and I have emphasised to the House that the figures that we have brought forward in the National Plan are firm 1965 prices.

Sir K. Joseph: That is quite wrong. In Written Answers to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bebington (Mr. Howe), the First Secretary of State made it plain that Chapter XVIII was unique in not being based on constant prices. It is on those Written Answers by the First Secretary of State that I based my question. But I will put it again in a P.N.Q. to the right hon. Lady, if I may.

Mr. Pentland: The right hon. Gentleman's information is in contradiction with the figures laid down in the plan.
The right hon. Gentleman then asked how many extra staff would be required for the scheme. In making our plans we have all along had in mind the need

to keep the administration as simple as is consistent with the essential purposes of the scheme. Until experience of the working of the new arrangements has been gained, we shall not be able to say precisely what the staff requirements will be, but these are the figures which the right hon. Gentleman asked for. We have to reckon with the possibility that by 1967–68 something like 2,000 extra staff may be needed in the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance as a result of the Bill, most of them in our local offices. To launch the scheme, about 1,700 extra staff in my Ministry would be sufficient. In addition, there will be those needed in the Ministry of Labour to administer earnings related unemployment benefits, where I understand rather more than 700 will be needed initially. The longer-term requirements depend very much on the rate of unemployment.
I know that there are many questions which have been left unanswered. As I said at the beginning of my speech, it is a highly complicated Bill. There are many technical points which will have to be raised in Committee. But I commend the Bill to the House as marking a step forward in the development of our social security provisions. It will provide additional help for people who lose their jobs and will therefore play a significant rôle in encouraging the redeployment of labour which we need in order to secure faster economic growth. As we all know, it is on the rate of this economic growth that our long-term plans for improving other aspects of social security must largely depend.

Mr. Kilfedder: Will the hon. Gentleman deal with the injustice to which I referred in my speech? The point that I put to him was with regard to a worker who is caught up in a trade dispute in his firm and is out of work and not entitled to unemployment benefit. Will the hon. Gentleman agree to refer this matter to the National Insurance Advisory Committee so that it can go into the matter and try to do something to remedy this injustice.

Mr. Pentland: I thought the hon. Gentleman realised that a decision had been taken a long time ago to refer this question of trade disputes to the Royal Commission on Trade Unions and Employers' Associations, which is now


sitting. I think that it was my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), who also referred to this. As my hon. Friend knows, and as the House is aware, this is a Government decision, and the matter is now before the Royal Commission.
The Bill provides benefits for families whose incomes are suddenly reduced by the death or illness of the breadwinner. The link between the provisions to be made for the early months of unemployment and sickness will maintain the idea that it is the sudden loss of the family income which needs to be considered, and not the contingency itself. I am sure that the House will agree that it would be wrong to pay more to the family when the breadwinner is unemployed than when he is sick.
As has been pointed out during the debate, some of us can remember the old days when a man who was not really fit for work would go along to the employment exchange and sign on on the dole because he would get more for being on the dole than he would receive by way of sickness benefit. I think that it was one of my mining Friends who said that he could recall men who were not fit dragging themselves to work, even when the doctors had determined that they should be in bed, because they were scared stiff of the financial consequences to their wives and families of staying away from work. We put a stop to that in 1948, and we are going to make sure that we do not bring it back again.
The Bill also takes an important step towards getting rid of some of the complications of the present system of unemployment benefit by fixing a standard period for which flat rate benefit can be obtained, just as there is to be a standard period for the duration of the earnings-related supplement, and changes in the benefit conditions for workers on short time and lay-off. In our view these changes will eventually lead to a fairer and more sensible division of responsibility between employers and the National Insurance Fund. I feel sure the House will agree that, in a National

Insurance Scheme, it is vital that the contributors' money should be seen to go to those who need it, and we hope that the new arrangements will help to secure this. The Government will, of course, keep a very careful watch on developments to make sure that the new arrangements achieve their purpose.
The Bill marks only the first step in the Government's proposals for new social security arrangements. Hon. Members on both sides of the House—and this has been demonstrated during the debate—are naturally anxious to know when other parts of the programme will be brought forward. Indeed, we find that the introduction of one part of the programme inevitably throws into relief the parts of our programme which still remain to be carried out. All that I can say tonight is that the Government are anxious to press on with other items as fast as this can be done, bearing in mind that improvements in social security must be paid for from the increasing wealth of the country and must involve detailed planning, for which adequate time must be allowed.
I readily accept that one could, if one wished, pinpoint certain imperfections in the Bill. But we are bringing it forward not only because we recognise that it is an act of social justice to do so but because it is the Government's sincere belief that this is one more step forward towards our objective of bringing about a state of human happiness and economic security to millions of our fellow citizens. We still have a long way to go. All of us in the Government accept that. But the proposals embodied in the Bill will bring us just that much closer to our main objective in social security.
I therefore ask the House to give the Bill a Second Reading as a valuable step forward in itself and as a pledge by this Government of further improvements to come.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Ifor Davies.]

Committee Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — NATIONAL INSURANCE [MONEY]

[Queen's Recommendation signified]

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 88 (Money Committees).

[Mr. RODERIC BOWEN in the Chair]

Motion made, and Question proposed.
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make provision for the payment under the National Insurance Act 1965 of earnings-related benefit, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament, subject to the provision made by section 85 of the said Act of 1965 for reimbursement out of the National Insurance Fund or by section 61 of the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act 1965 for reimbursement out of the Industrial Injuries Fund, of any increase attributable to that Act of the present Session in the expenses of the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance or any other government department which are so payable under either of those sections.—[Mr. Ifor Davies.]

9.44 p.m.

Sir Keith Joseph: Surely we are to hear something about the limitations, if any, imposed in Committee. Are we not to have from the Minister or one of her hon. Friends an explanation of the Financial Resolution?

Miss Herbison: Certainly. I thought that the Financial Resolution was so simple that it could have gone through on the nod, but if the right hon. Gentleman wants to know something about it I will explain it.
The Resolution authorises the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament for any increase in the cost of administering the National Insurance and Industrial Injuries Schemes due to the change for which the Bill provides. Under Section 85 of the National Insurance Act and Section 61 of the Industrial Injuries Act, administrative costs are met in the first place out of voted moneys, but the Treasury is reimbursed out of the respective funds. This arrangement ensures that the administrative costs are subject to Parliamentary control through the Estimates. That is what the Resolution is about.

Sir K. Joseph: Is the right hon. Lady telling the Committee that we are not to be free to discuss any of the points of substance in the Bill—the level of con-

tributions, the waiting days, the duration of benefit, the level of benefit, the floor of benefit the ceiling of benefit, and the people benefited? Are we not to be free to discuss additional benefits not related to earnings? Can the right hon. Lady tell us how far we can discuss the substance of the Bill within the terms of the Resolution?

Miss Herbison: It is not for me, as Minister, to tell the right hon. Gentleman what Amendments will be accepted. The right hon. Gentleman has been sufficiently long in the House to know that it will be for the Chairman of the Committee to decide what Amendments will be accepted. The Resolution covers the administrative costs. Not a penny for the purposes of the Bill will come out of the Exchequer. Its provisions will be financed completely from contributions. I think that I have said enough in that last sentence to give the right hon. Member an idea of what he can do when it comes to Amendments.

Sir K. Joseph: Let us get this abundantly plain. The right hon. Lady has not answered my point. Subject, of course, to the Ruling of the Chair in Committee, are we free, so far as procedure, is concerned, to move any changes in substance in the Bill—

Mr. Sydney Silverman: On a point of order. How far is it competent for hon. Members to debate with one another across the Floor of the Committee what is in order in discussing a Financial Resolution?

The Chairman: The right hon. Member, as the Chair conceives it at the moment, is seeking information from the Minister. At the moment, he is in order.

Mr. Silverman: The point of order is that he seems to me, with all respect, to be seeking information from the Minister which the Minister is not competent to give him. That is the question.

Sir K. Joseph: That point having been made, I will leave it.
As the Minister says, I have been long enough in the House to know that Governments take the trouble to frame Financial Resolutions to deal with what they want to discuss on the Bill. The right hon. Lady appears to have eliminated


from discussion all points of substance on the Bill. I take it that that is not what she is telling us. May I, then, have the answer from her to the question of how much we can, within the rules of order governing the Financial Resolution, discuss the merits of the Bill? May I take it that we can discuss any point of substance on the Bill—

The Chairman: The right hon. Gentleman is now putting a question to the Minister which will be entirely within the Ruling of the Chair—

Miss Herbison: Exactly.

The Chairman: He is entitled, of course, to ask the Minister, so far as the Chair will permit, what she conceives to be the scope of the Financial Resolution.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: On a point of order. While it may be competent for the right hon. Gentleman to ask my right hon. Friend what opportunities there will be to discuss the merits of the Bill, I submit to you, Mr. Bowen, with all respect, that it is not competent for him to do so in the course of debating the Financial Resolution.

Sir K. Joseph: I am sorry, but we have not had a firm answer from the Government about the effect of the Resolution on debates in Committee. May we have a firm answer? If the right hon. Lady cannot give it, will her right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster give it?

Miss Herbison: When my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Sydney Silverman) intervened and said that the Minister was not competent to deal with this, he was making very clear a point which the right hon. Gentleman should have known.
I would direct to his attention—this is why I told him that he ought to know, from my making it clear—that the Resolution covers only the administrative costs which will later come out of the fund. I again told him—this is why I said that from his long knowledge and work in the House he should have known—that almost any Amendment could be put

down to the Bill. Another Bill before the House at present does not deal with National Insurance, but Amendments have been tabled to it to use the National Insurance Fund.
I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman would know how far the scope of Amendments could go. Indeed, if he likes to put down Amendments to bankrupt the National Insurance Fund, he may do so. That is how wide the scope of his Amendments could be. It is then for the Chair to decide, as I said at the beginning, which of the Amendments will be called.

Sir K. Joseph: We are debating the basic rights of the House. When I was Minister of Housing and Local Government, the present Foreign Secretary—and perfectly within his rights—frequently asked the Government of the day what was covered and was not covered in Financial Resolutions. That is all I am asking the right hon. Lady. If she says that we can move any Amendment to the Bill within the Financial Resolution—always subject to the Chair—then I am completely satisfied. But it is not at all odd that we should ask for this assurance.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: I should like to offer two sentences in the situation which has developed. The right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) says that when my right hon. Friend tells him that the Financial Resolution involves nothing more than money for administrative purposes and that none of the benefits of the Bill is covered by the Resolution, then he accepts that. I am beginning to wonder why he did not accept it 10 minutes ago, when my right hon. Friend told him in perfectly simple words of one syllable, when he first asked. Now he has been told three times, and at the third attempt he is ready to accept it. It is time that principal spokesmen for the Opposition knew the rules of order particularly as they affect Financial Resolutions.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolution to be reported.

Report to be received Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — NATIONAL INSURANCE (INDUSTRIAL INJURIES)

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Workmen's Compensation (Supplementation) Scheme 1966, a draft of which was laid before this House on 26th January, be approved.—[Mr. Harold Davies.]

Mr. Speaker: The Question is—

Mr. Geoffrey Howe: With respect, Mr. Speaker, the Order needs an affirmative Resolution of the House. It has not been explained by anyone on behalf of the Government.

9.53 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance (Mr. Harold Davies): Perhaps it would be for the convenience of the House if, at the same time, we discussed and sought approval for the second Scheme on the Order Paper:
That the Pneumoconiosis, Byssinosis and Miscellaneous Diseases Benefit Scheme 1966, a draft of which was laid before this House on 26th January, be approved.

Mr. Speaker: I have no objection if the House has no objection. The right hon. Lady has moved the first Order. The House can debate both Orders together, and I will put the two Questions separately.

Mr. Davies: The two Schemes put into effect the changes introduced by the Workmen's Compensation and Benefit (Amendment) Act, 1965 for old cases—that is, for persons with a disability due to employment before the Industrial Injuries Act came into force on 5th July, 1948. Although the Industrial Injuries Act, 1946, repealed the Workmen's Compensation Acts, their provisions continued in force for these old cases. Compensation for old cases remained the liability of employers and was related to the loss of earnings—as defined in the old legislation—due to the injury.
Many measures were adopted after 1948 providing for payments from the Industrial Injuries Fund to meet hardship among these men, with the result that a very complex system evolved. The Workmen's Compensation and Benefit (Amendment) Act, 1965, not only extended the scope of these allowances to another 10,000 men, but also rationalised the whole complex of allowances. At this

point it is only just that I should pay tribute to both sides of the House for the ease with which the original Act went through Parliament and enabled us—so early tonight—to bring this scheme before the House.
Old cases fall broadly into two groups. First, men on workmen's compensation. They will be dealt with under the Workmen's Compensation (Supplementation) Scheme. Secondly, the time-barred men, who will be dealt with under the Pneumoconiosis, Byssinosis and Miscellaneous Diseases Benefit Scheme.
The current schemes will be replaced by the new ones, for which the present administrative board will continue to function. The board for each scheme consists of the same personnel, namely, a chairman and a deputy chairman, who are both experienced lawyers, members appointed by the Ministry after consultation with the employers' and employees' association, two from each side, and two senior members of the Minister's staff.
The draft schemes reproduce much of the material of the existing schemes, for example, the rules for claims and payments, adjudication and conduct of business. The only changes are those necessary to give effect to the requirements of the 1965 Act. It is important, because these are complicated matters, that I should emphasise that the only changes are those necessary to give effect to the requirements of the 1965 Act. Both also contain the usual provisions to ensure a smooth transition from the old to the new Schemes.
Some of my hon. Friends and others who are interested in these matters have expressed the view that the interpretation of Schedule 1 is somewhat difficult. I am not surprised that those who have had to follow these matters over the years—and I pay tribute to the trade union and miners' groups on this—have found some difficulty in this matter. However, the leaflets which we will issue will have a table set out in a more direct form.
The Schedule must be read with particular reference to Article 5 (2) of the draft Statutory Instrument. The first column refers to the loss of earnings as estimated by the board and not the loss of earnings as estimated for workmen's compensation purposes. A loss of earnings of between 1s. and 9s. 11d. will


qualify for the 2s. 6d. rate of allowance, and a loss of earnings of between 10s. and 19s. 11d. will qualify for an allowance of 5s., and so on, down the table of allowances.
It is important to note that a person with a small loss of earnings for workmen's compensation purposes could qualify for the top, 47s. 6d., rate of lesser incapacity allowance if the board found loss of earnings of 125s. or more. A study of the first 1,000 cases being dealt with by the board suggests that a very high proportion of claimants will benefit in this way. That is why, on Second Reading, we felt that hon. Members who represented industrial areas where these old cases existed would find that a number of people who deserved it would receive benefit as a result of the implementation of this legislation.
The implementation of the 1965 Act called for a recasting of the existing supplementation scheme. This is effected by the draft scheme now before the House. Similarly, a scheme was required to deal with time-barred men, and the opportunity is taken to incorporate in the second draft scheme now before the House the existing schemes applying also to those men.
Altogether, the two new schemes will affect about 27,000 men. These include getting on for 5,000 totally disabled men, of whom over 1, 000 benefit under the "time-barred" scheme; and a further 12,000 partially disabled existing beneficiaries of whom about half are dealt with under each Scheme. Lastly, about 10,000 new beneficiaries will receive the new "lesser incapacity allowance". The cost of these improvements will be rather more than £1 million in the first year, declining thereafter.
The 1965 Act, which received the Royal Assent on 22nd December last, comes into operation on 1st March, and in order that these men will get their benefits from the earliest possible date these draft schemes are also planned to come into operation on 1st March. Once affirmative Resolutions have been secured from both Houses of Parliament, the schemes can formally be made, and the board administering them can go ahead with that part of its work which can only be initiated after these essential preliminaries have been completed.
To save time, all that can be done in advance of the normal making of the scheme will have been done, to bring into payment as many new allowances as possible on the first pay day after 1st March.

10.2 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Howe: I join with the Joint Parliamentary Secretary in paying tribute to all concerned with this Act and these schemes for the speed with which the schemes have been brought before the House in accordance with the undertakings given when the Measure was receiving its Second Reading. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) then made clear, we on this side at that time gave our undertaking to do everything possible to get the provisions implemented as quickly as possible, and we are glad to be able to do so.
It is rather a solemn reflection that, as the hon. Gentleman has explained, these two very cumbersome and complex Statutory Instruments represent rationalisation of that which went before. "Rationalisation" is a word much in favour with hon. Members opposite, and it is as well for them to bear in mind, when they apply it to other things, the complications that can flow from any attempt to rationalise even such a small matter as this.
One or two questions occur to me when comparing the two schemes. The answers may well lie in the fact that the schemes have different historical origins, but it will be useful to the House to have a precise explanation. First of all, both schemes provide—one in Regulation 14 and the other in Regulation 15—that the decision of the board shall be final. Are we to take it that that excludes, as I think it must, any right of appeal in the ordinary way from the decision of the board to the courts, or any other independent body?
The second question really flows from the first. It is odd, if the right of appeal in general is so excluded, to find express provision in Regulation 15 of the pneumoconiosis scheme for a limited right of appeal on the one point dealt with in that regulation. The hon. Gentleman will recollect that that regulation provides for the board to have a right to refer to an insurance officer certain


questions if it is of the opinion that they arise.
It goes on to provide that where the insurance officer decides those questions there shall be the ordinary right of appeal in accordance with the Industrial Injuries Act. It seems odd that that limited right of appeal should be preserved under one scheme and not on the other on that one point but not apparently on anything else. Am I right in thinking that there is in general no right of appeal in either of these schemes?
Why is there the discrepancy between the two schemes as between Regulation 21 of the pneumoconiosis scheme and Regulation 19 of the workmen's compensation scheme? Regulation 21 makes special provision in sub-paragraph (2) for death benefits, but the corresponding regulation for the workmen's compensation scheme makes no provision for death benefit. There may be a perfectly good reason for this, but it does not strike one at first sight. Perhaps the most important point is that in both regulations it is provided that, in general, no allowances shall be paid for a period of more than six months before the date on which the claim is made. I take it that it means there will be no retrospective payment of allowances and people brought into these schemes for the first time will be entitled to only six months' back benefit.
I take it that that is the general intention and I quite understand why, but what I am not clear about is what the limits are to the discretion of the board and the administrative board under these regulations. Under both it is provided that in any particular case the board may determine that the allowance shall be payable from some earlier date. No specific limit is drawn to that discretion to give retrospective allowances. The death benefit provision is on quite specific grounds. It is provided that the board may give back payment when there is reasonable cause for failure to make payment earlier. 
I am a little concerned with the words giving the board the right to determine as they may lead to a wide-ranging and not necessarily consistent discretion being exercised. It will be difficult when a man requires back payment and says, "You have the right to determine that my back payment should be more than six months.

Why do you not take account of my hardship and make payment for longer than six months?". I am a little disturbed that there is no guidance given to the board under that provision.
If I read the schemes aright, I am glad to see that they both take account of the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham, who expressed the hope that no one would be penalised by the changes being made and no one would be worse off now than before the Act was passed. That seems to have been achieved. I should like to know, however, whether the provisions of the schemes have been considered, or are to be considered, by the Council on Tribunals before the regulations and schemes are brought before the House. My understanding of the procedure since the Tribunals and Inquiries Act was passed is that any administrative or quasi-administrative body of this kind has to have its procedure and establishment approved by the Council. I should like to know whether this procedure has been thoroughly approved in that way by the Council.
During the Second Reading of the Bill under which these schemes are made my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Sharpies) drew the attention of the Government to the necessity for giving the utmost possible publicity to these schemes and the changes so that all the 27,000 potentially affected should know about them. My hon. Friend made the point expressly that it must not be assumed that all of these people, some of them unemployed now for some years, are necessarily in close contact with their trade union organisations and thus able to learn about it on the industrial grapevine. The Parliamentary Secretary said that revised leaflets would be prepared setting out the pattern of the scheme. I hope that this debate in itself will have served to give additional publicity to the fact that these changes are being made with the approval of both sides of the House.
I should like to have the Parliamentary Secretary's assurance that some more specific attempt will be made to publicise these measures as widely as possible so that no one who is entitled to these benefits will go without them through ignorance of what has been done.

10.10 p.m.

Mr. Julian Snow: I rise with some diffidence because, like my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary but unlike some of my hon. Friends, I do not have the benefit of expert trade union advice in this matter. My hon. Friend will know what I refer to, since he and I were recently at a conference which dealt with problems confronting the mining industry in our constituencies.
I ask two relatively short points. First, can my hon. Friend offer information about the technical efficiency of the medical board in the diagnosis of pneumoconiosis and byssinosis? I imagine that many hon. Members who represent mining areas will appreciate that the technical efficiency of a medical board as provided under this scheme may justify some further scrutiny in the light of more modern methods of diagnosis.
I mention the point because, speaking for myself, I have had many occasions when there have been long-drawn-out claims and considerations of claims for benefit which have ultimately taken place in an atmosphere when our constituents have been in a very poor state of health as a result of their work in the mining industry. I should like my hon. Friend's assurance that his Ministry plays some part, presumably in collaboration with the Ministry of Health, in ensuring that the medical board not only has the funds but has the expertise to ensure that a diagnosis is really up to date.
My second point concerns the question of delayed claims. My hon. Friend will no doubt be aware that many cases arise where a man has come out of the industry for a period of years and, as a result of a post mortem, it has been established that he has, in fact, suffered from his work in an industry from which he may have retired many years before. This has produced a degree of uncertainy in establishing claims to benefit or to the death allowance and I would ask my hon. Friend whether he is satisfied that the principal board takes into account the delay factor in establishing claims.

10.13 p.m.

Mr. Charles Mapp: I want to raise a point very similar to that raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Snow).

The administrative board is given very wide powers by Regulations 16 and 29. Regulation 13 empowers the board to refer the case to a registered medical practitioner. One's experience of byssinosis in the cotton trade is that, apart from the clear and obvious cases, the medical world is frequently in much doubt as to whether the case is established. The man before them may have all the environmental history which would lead an ordinary layman to the opinion that his condition has resulted from his work in a certain industry, but that opinion cannot be reached unless there are some medical facts to justify it. The situation is frequently and regrettably resolved by the post-mortem examination. When I see in my local newspaper reports of post mortems which reveal byssinosis as the cause of death, I believe they are the most distressing cases that one can find.
I therefore ask the Minister, without trying to take sides in the medical arguments whether an appellant has got the disease or not, to appreciate that there is a vast number of in-between cases—cases in which one cannot say "black" or "white"; it is not a case of "yes", nor is it a case of "no". Ultimately, we have the situation in which one says "I wish we had known, but now it is too late."
I therefore suggest that one medical practitioner is not enough. I believe that at least two opinions are desirable, and, if possible, opinions from two medical people who are known to have really healthy, although probably different, views about the matter.
Another point I wish to put in connection with the administrative board is this. In matters involving common law rights the House and the country have approved of people having access to legal aid, the assumption being that many of our constituents are uninformed about the law, which is perfectly true, and equally that very large numbers have not the money with which to purchase that knowledge. I have no complaint about that, except that it is a fine heyday for the profession. However, I have no complaint of the general picture.
I say to the Minister as sincerely as I can that, in this matter of industrial bad health arising from industrial conditions, there is no legal aid. No aid is given


to the man who feels, nearly always correctly, that his health is undermined because of his work. We give legal aid to the citizen who is doubtful about his common law rights. But where he is doubtful about medical opinions, where he firmly believes that the disease has arisen from his work and where medical opinion is cold and abstract, we ought to be able to say to the appellant, "We are prepared in reasonable circumstances to pay for whatever outside medical opinion you care to get, so that that opinion may be submitted to the appropriate board." This is elementary justice.
I know the trade unions do all they can in: this direction. The cotton unions in Lancashire co-operate to a marked degree in this respect, but there is still a large area of doubt. I would feel much happier if I could say to the people who visit me—and I am sure that this applies to other hon. Members as well—"Let us get an opinion from any doctor you care to consult. So long as the fee is not unreasonable, it can be borne by the Ministry so that there can be a fair medical assessment from that doctor and from another medical practitioner drawn from the Ministry."
I make that suggestion to the Minister so that in the operation of the administrative boards this essential human lubricating oil can be administered, thus making the scheme much more satisfactory.

10.20 p.m.

Mr. F. Blackburn: Am I right in my interpretation of the scheme in thinking that a person suffering from byssinosis or pneumoconiosis is entitled to benefit and not limited by having to be engaged in a scheduled occupation? Is it not obvious that anyone suffering from byssinosis or pneumoconiosis has contracted the illness through his occupation?
I recently had an unfortunate case of a constituent who had been working in a factory where both cotton and woollen goods were made and who had contracted the disease, but who, because he was working in the cotton section of the industry, was not able to receive benefit. I want to be clear that my interpretation is right and that now if a man is found to be suffering from either disease he will be entitled to benefit, quite apart from the occupation in which he is engaged.

10.21 p.m.

Sir Douglas Glover: The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Blackburn) has raised a very important matter. Historically, no one who has suffered from either of these diseases has caught it other than as a result of his occupation and it is a bit hard if a chap who works on the cotton side of the industry, which is not scheduled, does not qualify for benefit while if he had worked on the woollen side he would have qualified because that is scheduled. I hope that the Minister will go into that.
I rose mostly to support what the hon. Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Mapp) had to say about medical advice. It is not much consolation to a widow to be told that as the result of a post mortem it is clear that her husband should have been drawing benefit for many years. It is then a bit late in the day to say that he was suffering from the disease.
The hon. Gentleman made a very powerful speech in a short time—perhaps because it was short, it was more powerful—on the subject of a medical examination. I do not entirely agree with what he had to say about having two medical examiners, because that might lead to an impasse. If there is to be more than one doctor, perhaps there ought to be three rather than two. However, apart from that disagreement, I strongly support what he had to say.

10.22 p.m.

Mr. Eric Ogden: My hon. Friend spoke of sending out leaflets so that those who deserve the help to be provided by the scheme would know about it. Can he tell us more about what methods he proposes to use? For instance, does he propose to use the services of the Post Office and have notices displayed in post offices where people collect their pensions? Will the notices be shown in doctors' surgeries, for instance? Are they to be sent direct to the trade unions, to branches, and so on?
This excellent scheme is to be welcomed. The impression that because industry is being modernised the incidence of these two diseases is being reduced is not borne out in fact. Certainly, the machinery going into the pits is likely to cause more pneumoconiosis than did the


old machinery. However, my main comment is that it is no good having all these provisions unless every effort is made, and not only through leaflets, to draw them to the attention of those concerned.

10.24 p.m.

Mr. Harold Davies: As always, both sides of the House have shown intense interest in these issues of workmen's compensation and industrial diseases and injuries, but the House does not seem to be fully aware of what is being done. Without wishing to sound pompous, I want to try to clarify the position, and I will give further clarification if hon. Members want it.
Hon. Members have missed an important point. While hon. Members are naturally interested in the fundamental problems of industrial injuries and diseases which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Snow) pointed out, were discussed with the miners not long ago, the problem of the diagnosis of pneumoconiosis is not what we are now considering. That does not mean that we are neglecting this vital problem because we are daily looking at ways of approaching the question of diagnosis. On the question about publicity, we are using all available methods but I will see that the suggestions made reach the Minister.
Let us see what we are doing and what these Schemes are about. The Workmen's Compensation (Supplementation) Scheme, 1966, improves and extends allowances payable out of the Industrial Injuries Fund in respect of injury or disease arising out of employment before July, 1948. That means that if we are to go in depth into some of these questions I would be ruled out of order.
The other scheme, the Pneumoconiosis, Byssinosis and Miscellaneous Diseases Benefit Scheme, 1966, provides for payment of benefit out of the Industrial Injuries Fund in respect of disablement or death for certain diseases arising out of employment before 5th July, 1948 in cases where neither workmen's compensation nor benefit under the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act, 1965, was payable. I think that the Opposition will agree that that is a succinct summary of what we are talking about.

Sir D. Glover: I am sure the hon. Gentleman would agree that even someone who contracted this disease before 1948 has still to establish medical grounds to qualify.

Mr. Davies: That is quite right, but we know all of these people who contracted it before that date. This is one of the things which we are trying to put right so that the medical people are not dragged in quite so much. I do not use the words "dragged in" in any derogatory sense.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Blackburn) will accept the general statement and will realise, through his knowledge of the procedure of the House, that if I were to follow this matter in depth I would be ruled out of order.

Mr. Blackburn: My knowledge of the procedure of the House was responsible for the form in which I put my question.

Mr. Davies: With due respect to my hon. Friend's knowledge of the procedure of the House, he has shown lack of knowledge of the affirmative Motion with which we are now dealing.
Several points were raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Litchfield and Tamworth (Mr. Snow). I want to keep the debate on the narrow issue. The House has accepted my interpretation. What follows is important and I want to get it crystal clear. We are now dealing with the questions raised about the adjudication systems in these two schemes—

Mr. Snow: I hope that my hon. Friend will not discard my point. He said that I was on a bad point because I was talking about claims which might be of a recent type. I was, on the contrary, talking about claims in respect of a man who might have contracted one of these diseases prior to 1948. My hon. Friend must know from his experience that cases arise where old men suddenly become extremely ill or even die. In the post mortem and by reference to the man's history, there is a prima facie case that the man worked for a long time in industry and contracted the disease before 1948 but has never had benefit. Perhaps, therefore, my hon. Friend will be a little more patient with me. I think that I was in order.

Mr. Davies: I did not say that my hon. Friend was out of order.
I wanted at that moment to deal with the question of the adjudication system, to which the hon. and learned Member for Bebington (Mr. Howe) referred. I acknowledge that it is an important point which one should try to clarify. If at the end of my explanation the hon. and learned Member and his hon. Friends are not satisfied, I will certainly see that they have a complete interpretation of it this week.
Without going into the question of claims perhaps I may deal with the rather technical problem as it concerns this difficult Statutory Instrument. The Workmen's Compensation Scheme is a scheme for supplementing existing workmen's compensation. Death grants are payable under the Workmen's Compensation Act and fall to be determined by the ordinary courts between the two parties, namely, the employer and the employee. Consequently, they do not form part of the scheme.
The Pneumoconiosis, Byssinosis and Miscellaneous Diseases Benefit Scheme is for those persons who, although their disease was contracted before July, 1948, were not able to claim compensation because they were time-barred—this replies to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield and Tamworth; we have discussed this concerning miners—when the disease first manifested itself. The scheme is intended broadly to give them what they might have had by way of workmen's compensation. In other words, the scheme is broadly to try to give them, as we agreed, rough justice. It is complicated. There is no easy mathematical formula by which one can arrive at the answers.
The scheme does this, however, by way of flat-rate allowances—not wage-related allowances—death benefit and also special weekly increases in special circumstances for dependent wives and children. Certain death benefit and dependency allowances are determined not by the Board, but by the normal statutory authorities established by the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act. This is to make sure that they are dealt with on exactly the same terms. These claims, therefore, are not dealt with by the Board.
Questions comparable to the compensation issues arising under the Workmen's Compensation Scheme are dealt with by the board and not by the industrial injuries statutory authorities. The Board to which the Scheme relates is of a different status to the insurance officers and local appeal tribunals with whom we are all familiar under the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act. Indeed, in my opening speech I referred to the board. It consists of two eminent lawyers who provide the chairman, two representatives of employers, and two of the workers, and two senior officials of our Department. The issues they deal with are not the particulars of interpretation of the industrial injury law, and they do not deal with industrial injuries matters, but with matters involving knowledge of the workmen's compensation law and the application of wide discretionary powers which turn on knowledge of working practices.
That may sound somewhat involved, so I will repeat it in simple language if the House wishes. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] If the House especially wishes it in very simple language I will do it. What we are really asking for in this scheme—and the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee), with their training, will put it into different terms—is not men dealing so much with industrial injuries law: we want men with wide knowledge of the old Workmen's Compensation Acts, with wide knowledge of industry, and with knowledge of the interpretation of some of those old Acts. There are Members on both sides of the House who dealt with workmen's compensation, and among them men from the mining industry, and they understand exactly. Manv of these people have had no training whatever in law as such but because of their proximity to these problems of industrial injury they can give very accurate answers.

Sir D. Glover: Sir D. Glover rose—

Mr. Davies: I do not want to delay, but I will give way if the hon. Gentleman wants to raise a question for information.

Sir D. Glover: I should like to put a question. Perhaps it would clarify my mind, because I admit that at this


moment it is not clear on this problem. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that under this scheme if I had worked in a coal mine right up to today and got pneumoconiosis I would be dealt with by one authority, but that if I left the mine in 1948 and developed this disease 12 years later and were Statute barred, I would be dealt with by another organisation? If so, why did he not say half an hour ago? Then I would have understood it.

Mr. Davies: It is not quite as simple as that, as the hon. Gentleman knows very well.
Let me take, finally, this question about the tribunals. My advice is that they do not need to come before the Council on Tribunals. That is the direct answer to a specific question.
The six months' provision is very technical, but it follows similar provisions in the Industrial Injuries Act which, I am sure, those who have dealt with it understand fairly well. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to probe that to any

depth I would ask him to give me time to give him a written reply, because it is indeed a very technical question, and I think it would be wiser to give an answer in writing.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Workmen's Compensation (Supplementation) Scheme 1966, a draft of which was laid before this House on 26th January, be approved.

Pneumoconiosis, Byssinosis and Miscellaneous Diseases Benefit Scheme 1966, [draft laid before the House 26th January], approved.—[Mr. Harold Davies.]

Orders of the Day — ESTIMATES

Ordered,
That for the remainder of the present Session the Estimates Committee have power to appoint persons with technical or scientific knowledge for the purpose of particular inquiries, either to supply information which is not readily available or to elucidate matters of complexity within the Committee's order of reference.—[Mr. William Hamilton.]

Orders of the Day — LAVENDER HILL, ENFIELD (DEVELOPMENT SITE)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Ifor Davies.]

10.40 p.m.

Mr. Iain Macleod: We discuss in this Adjournment debate what is perhaps the most famous or most notorious housing site in the country. It was an issue in a small way at the General Election; indeed, I have expressed my opinion that it won the General Election for the Socialist Party. It crops up over and over again in our debates. It came into a number of the speeches on the Second Reading of the Land Commission Bill a few days ago.
In view of that, it seems incredible—and I use the word carefully—that a final decision has been taken in the matter without full attention being paid to local residents and local societies, and that the decision to go ahead is one that is not to be supported by a public inquiry. It is on that point, as I have informed the Minister, that I wish to concentrate.
I am very grateful to him for coming to answer the debate himself. It is true that he is personally concerned, but it is also a courtesy to myself and to the House which I very much appreciate.
The story of the site is pretty well known, of how the Hundred Acres Charity eventually decided to sell the allotment site, how it was bought for £7,500 by the Lavender Garden Properties, and how as a result of a decision of a Conservative Minister of Housing at the time—a decision with which I said then and I say still I agree—to give planning permission for housing, the value turned out to be not less than £240,000.
I make two points which are often omitted from a full account of the case. First of all, the underbidder to the £7,500 was the local council, by £200. It is a sad thought, particularly for the ratepayers of Enfield, that had the local council been prepared to pay a little more, perhaps the golden acres would have accrued to the benefit of those who live in that particular area.
Secondly, it is right to say that in October, 1964, the company offered to

return to the council the £240,000 which it had been awarded by the High Court, apart from the Minister's decision, on condition that it was allowed to proceed with its original plans for small cheap flats and maisonettes; and that offer, perhaps properly, was turned down by the council.
I would make it quite clear that the Lavender Hill case convinced me and, at the General Election, when I was in a sort of semi-detached position, the Minister will recall that I advocated the imposition of a levy which would operate on the trigger of planning permission. I advocated that also somewhat unofficially after the election, in particular at the Leyton by-election, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) made it official Conservative policy early in March. So there is little doubt that the site has exercised a good deal of influence upon our thinking. I confess that it has upon mine.
I do not want to go into the detail of the 16, to 14, to 12 storeys with tower blocks which were the various propositions put forward on behalf of the old Enfield Borough Council and the new Enfield Council of the Greater London area. This site is on one of the highest points in Enfield. It is on the edge of lovely green belt country. It is a few yards from The Ridgeway, where I lived for about 14 years, and it is not in the least surprising, therefore, that when the Minister's decision was made known that 12 storey blocks with 100 habitable rooms per acre were to go forward—and this was in November, 1965—local indignation really boiled over.
There are some peculiar aspects of this decision which I would wish for a moment to probe. First, how much consultation was there? The Ministry, not the Minister—the Minister enters into this deplorable story a little later; for the moment it is the Ministry—said in a letter dated 3rd November to Mr. Freeman, who has played a prominent part in objecting to this particular proposal:
I can assure you that the views of local residents were taken into account by the Minister"—
by the Minister—
in reaching his decision.


Well, were they? It is true that there was a meeting at the end of July, but it was limited to those whose houses adjoin this particular site, and as these tower flats, even at 12 storeys, are going to be visible as far as Epping Forest, that seems to me a ludicrously narrow definition of those who were affected by this building.

The Minister of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Richard Grossman): I want to follow the story. When was this letter to which the right hon. Gentleman referred written? Was it written in November?

Mr. Macleod: Yes, on 3rd November.

Mr. Crossman: After the application of the Enfield Borough Council in October, and the advertisement in the Press?

Mr. Macleod: That is right. It was a letter in reply to a letter of protest from Mr. Freeman. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman has the letter, but I can show him a copy of it if necessary.
Mr. Slater, in referring to this discussion at the end of July, said:
The residents were solidly of the opinion that the proposed development was bad planning and would spoil the green belt",
and another constituent of mine, who is Chairman of the Borough Federation of Ratepayers and Civic Association, said that
the whole thing was a complete waste of time. 
The local Press were excluded from this meeting, and so was I. I asked whether I could attend, and I was told "No". I was offered a private interview, but this seemed unsuitable for a Member of Parliament in this case. That is the only way in which it can possibly be argued that the opinion of some of those concerned has been taken into consideration by the Minister.
Who is really against this proposal? The answer is, all the ratepayers' associations, at least until they have had a public inquiry, the Enfield Preservation Society, and both the Tory and Liberal Parties. There is an important point here, and I know that the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. John Mackie) will agree with me, although I do not expect any sympathy from the Minister in putting it forward.
As far as local elections are concerned, Enfield is rather a strange place. East is East, and West is West, and it is almost unheard of for a Tory to win a seat in the East—I acknowledge that—but I am happy to say that it is quite unheard of for a Socialist to win a seat in the West. The Liberals have won one or two, but that is all, and so all those who represent, or who have represented, those who reside in this area hold the view which I am putting forward tonight, and I think that this is a matter which should be taken into account.

Mr. Julian Snow: Will the right hon. Gentleman elaborate on what he was excluded from? We are rather interested in this.

Mr. Macleod: I was excluded from a meeting which was called by the Chairman of the Planning Committee of Enfield, and which was confined to those who had houses immediately adjoining the site. This is the site which has caused all this controversy. The public meeting was one which I felt a Member of Parliament should have been able to attend.
It is quite clear that this matter is full of politics. The Planning Committee Chairman to whom we have just been referred, who sponsored this inadequate meeting and was anxious to push this proposal into Enfield, West, is also the prospective Labour candidate for my constituency, so that the was attacked on the local council is not surprising. The communication between Enfield and the Greater London Council and the Ministry are full of confusion and contradiction. The gentleman in question—Councillor Graham—says that his conscience is clear. I do not attack this statement; I do not attack him. If I did I would do it in Enfield, where he could reply. But this is an excellent reason not to fear but to welcome the public inquiry for which I look tonight.
I now come to the Minister himself. As far as I can trace, the first letter which deals with this matter—a personal letter from him—is one of 21st December, but on 1st December, after a meeting at Tottenham, he was buttonholed by one of my constituents. This is reported in a local newspaper under the heading, "Where is Lavender Hill? Asks Mr. Crossman"


—a question that he will not be able to ask after tonight. This constituent, having failed to raise the question at the meeting, buttonholed the Minister as he left the building. According to the report he said:
'I asked him why he had granted planning approval for the tower blocks at Lavender Hill without holding a public inquiry. 'Mr. Ward told the Gazette, 'and I emphasised the tremendous opposition to the scheme by individuals and organisations.'
Mr. Ward says that the Minister replied: Where is Lavender Hill? What is this proposal about and why hasn't anyone written to me about it? ' I told him that dozens of letters had been sent to him opposing the scheme but he said he had not seen them and again asked what it was all about, said Mr. Ward.
I have no doubt that the Minister will accept that conversation.
I know that the Minister will take this point very seriously: the effect of this decision has been deplorable in relation to the standing of his Ministry in this area. This is particularly important, because there are so many planning proposals in connection with the Lea Valley in which the Minister is closely concerned. I want to quote again from the Enfteld Gazette of a more recent date. It concerns the development of nursery land. It says:
Mr. L. T. King, who is particularly concerned about Cairo Nursery, has written to the town clerk: 'After the fiasco of the Lavender Hill site I wonder if the Minister ever bothers to deal personally with objections or observations or even takes any notice of them. However, because I have strong views I will put my observations on record even though I believe the Minister's decision has already been made.
I now come to my last point, which I told the Minister I wished to raise. The question is whether the Minister himself took the decision, or whether an official did. It is an unusual question, but it is very relevant to this case. I have been head of a Department for longer than anyone, except one, or at the most, two hon. Members in this House, and I know that it is a legend that a Minister can read or even see all the cases that come into his Department and on which decisions in his name go out. But Ministerial responsibility is not a legend, as Sir Thomas Dugdale—as he then was—reminded us in one case. The Minister knows this.
There is an early warning system in operation in all Ministries, and the more

explosive an issue is the higher the level at which the decision ought to be taken. I simply cannot believe—and I mean this genuinely as a compliment to the Minister—that he took this decision. He has a reputation—and I say this without sarcasm—for being a very able Minister. I am certain that he would have recognised how much politics there was in this and that he would have awarded a court of inquiry. So I come to the conclusion that this decision was taken by an official. The Minister's inclination, no doubt—and it always is a Minister's inclination, quite rightly—is to defend that official's decision. I hope that he will not do so on this occasion. I hope that he will not say that there has been enough consultation, because I think that even in this short debate I have been able to show that that simply is not true. Between councils and committees perhaps there has, but that is not the point, and local people, as many as wish, should be able to have their full say at an open public inquiry.
The history of this case is in many ways deplorable, but it is accepted now that there should be building on this land to a considerable density. It is accepted that it should be council building. But only if there is a public inquiry can what has happened be redeemed. So I ask the Minister to agree that, even now, the voice of the local people should be heard, as they have the right to ask that it should be heard, through the medium of a public inquiry. I hope that he will concede that tonight.

10.51 p.m.

The Minister of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Richard Grossman): I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) for giving me warning and enabling us to discuss this subsidiary aspect of what he says is a notorious case. I will not waste time in dealing with the whole history of the case, except simply to take up a couple of points in his otherwise reasonably fair summary.
He asked why the council did not bid the extra £250. Perhaps he has not had the time to resume the history of the case, but this was a case of tender, and there was no question of competitive auction. I am told that the council was outbid by someone who was probably tipped off about what the council had done, and


they have never forgiven themselves for allowing this thing to happen to them. It was not a question of their not being willing to pay: they were outwitted in these dubious events by somebody who had been given inside information of their intention and who outbid them. Therefore, to condemn the council over this is a little unfair.
I will not go through the whole history. As the right hon. Gentleman said, it is a sorry history in terms of his own Government's legislation and the decisions of his right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) who is sitting beside him. When he was charged by my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture in a previous adjournment debate, the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East had to say that the reason that he had to give the decision which he had was that this was an area which could be used for residential purposes:
In this situation, the Minister "—
this is under Tory law—
has to address his mind to whether the land is such that the Minister cannot imagine its being used for a purpose of higher value than that to which it is proposed to put it. "—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th January, Vol. 688. c. 468–9.]
It is worth remembering that the Bill which effectively destroyed our planning legislation was a Bill which the then Minister described as one which instructed him to see if it was possible to conceive of any kind of purpose which would make the land cost more. So it is not surprising that, as a result of this law and his decision against his inspector, the price of the land rocketed from £7,500 to £240,000.
The right hon. Gentleman is right to tell me the result of the performance of his right hon. Friend, whose mind is now fundamentally changed and who has now seen the advantages of betterment value and the rest, which the Land Commission—against which he voted on Second Reading, incidentally—will be there to carry out. It is true that the Enfield Council, not unreasonably, as the right hon. Gentleman said, decided that, if the land were to be built over, it should be for council house building rather than private enterprise, so they purchased for the £240,000.
They had sought to obtain planning permission from the Middlesex County Council. Then came the dispute about the density. The county council wanted 60 rooms per acre. The local council then put up a new plan for tower blocks with 116 to 120 rooms per acre. I intervened at this point and told them that that was too much, and, in collaboration with the G.L.C., advised them to take this estimate down a little, and brought them down to 100 per acre. It is lucky that I did, because otherwise the compensation now being paid would be even higher. Another £100,000 might be charged, according to the right hon. Gentleman's definition of imaging something and allowing the highest figure to be quoted. The Ministry at least intervened with the effect of saving money in this case and with the effect of seeing that the sum was reduced. In fact, of course, we did not do this with any regard for money, because that was not our job; our job was simply to consider the virtues of planning and to see how best the area could be used. We decided that it could best be used at 100 rooms per acre rather than at 116 per acre.
Since then we have been told in newspaper articles that the owners are raising their claim. The Guardian says that it is being raised to £400,000 per acre, which is £160,000 more than the £240,000, which in itself was much more than the £7,500. The Daily Mail tells me that it is up to £450,000. My own guess is that it would be below that figure but still a handsome increase—and simply in terms of density.
I will deal with the question of a public inquiry in full, but there is one point which I should first like to put to the right hon. Gentleman. I would not have followed this point normally, but I have collected all the Press cuttings and I have a report of a speech in which he has been telling his constituents what he thinks the real issues are. He said—drawing the moral of Lavender Hill—
The fundamental differences between the two parties is that Labour wants a nation of council house tenants and the Conservatives a nation of owner-occupiers.
That was the conclusion which he reached. He thought that what the Government were fighting for was that the council should develop the land whereas he was valiantly fighting for the


owner-occupiers. He did not say that tonight. He said tonight that he saw the council's point, but I have read what he told his no doubt cheering audience when he was whipping up indignation against the Minister and the council. He said, "I stand for the owner-occupiers". In fact, the houses would be somewhat expensive at this price per acre. One could build only luxury flats at such a price.
Tonight he does not make this claim. He admits that there may be a case for the council building on the site. He does not challenge a density of 100 rooms to the acre. In fact, he asks only one question: why was not a public inquiry held before the decision was taken?

Mr. Macleod: I did not say that I did not challenge the density of 100 rooms to the acre. I said that I wanted that decided after a public inquiry. That is a very different point.

Mr. Crossman: The right hon. Gentleman has narrowed it to one issue. He admits that it is an infamous case—so infamous as a result of his right hon. Friend's activities that it converted him to the view that there was a case for betterment value. I am delighted to hear that. Sinners are always to be welcomed. If he has been convinced by a case in his own constituency, well and good. He has been convinced by the outrageous nature of that decision and the whole dreary, seamy, history of it, which he asks us to repeat. But he now says that he wants one thing more—a public inquiry.
I should have thought that there were few sites in the whole of Britain more notorious, more infamous and better publicised than Lavender Hill. He commented that I once said that I had never heard of it. It is true that I made that remark. One evening I was far away in another part of London, in Tottenham, and when I came out of the meeting I was asked, "Will you deal with Lavender Hill?" I was very puzzled because I thought that I was in the wrong part of London. Judging by the question I thought that I must be near Lavender Hill! I then realised that outside the meeting in Tottenham someone had approached me who had come from Enfield. In a somewhat bewildered state I said, "Where on earth is Lavender Hill?" I was trying to point

out that I was in Tottenham, not in Enfield.
The right hon. Gentleman is quite right when he says that a Minister, known to be somewhat political, would be expected to have heard of this question, especially in view of his own conversion as a result of it. But he need not think that I did not know of it or did not authorise the decision. It is true that in the first place the Parliamentary Secretary acted and that in the second place I acted, but I take full responsibility, and there was no question of an official doing it. I took a considered decision in this case that we did not want another public inquiry.
Let me tell the right hon. Gentleman why. I have spent 15 months in the Ministry, and one thing I have learned is the danger in this country of Government by public inquiry. I have learned that if we have nothing but public inquiry after public inquiry—consider the Local Government Commission—we make democracy come into contempt by endless public inquiry.
Let me tell him a little about what would have been required of a public inquiry in this case. There could not have been a public inquiry about the use of this land because the Middlesex County Council, as the planning authority, had already ruled on that. The issue was not whether the land should be used by the council for residential purposes. The only area on which we could have had a public inquiry was the precise density for the land. I looked at this matter. We had had a lot of inquiries, and protests had been made. This had happened during two periods; in July and in October. In October the decision of the council had been advertised in the local Press. Everybody had had the right to object. The objections had been filed, collected and organised and endless meetings had been held. If the right hon. Gentleman thinks that I did not know that somebody had objected, great Scott, what was the local Press for? What were the advertisements for? And if he says, "On every possible occasion we should have yet another formal inquiry"—yet another opportunity for the barristers to get their briefs, which, no doubt, he would like them to have, then that is not what I stand for as Minister.
I have said that before and I repeat it now. Where a matter has been fully ventilated, where time and again it has been advertised, discussed and debated, where the objections have been registered time and again—in such circumstances a decision to hold another public inquiry, with all that is involved in the processing in my Ministry and so on, which takes many months these days, is a decision for delay. In this case, there has been a very long time of delay. As usual, years have been spent and I admit freely that we now have about 18,000 planning appeals in my Ministry. Their number has increased by 50 per cent. in the last 18 months, though I have not increased my staff by 50 per cent. to deal with them.
There is now several months' delay before such a matter is processed in the Ministry and comes to me. Every time that happens, there is delay while those concerned select their barristers for the great public inquiry—by the time they have chosen their forensic protagonists. At each stage there is delay, with perhaps someone saying, "I must wait for so and so, and that may take six months". It may take a year for one of these brilliant forensic displays to take place.
What on earth could come out of another inquiry, except the knowledge that someone in Enfield did not agree that tower blocks should be built there or that someone did not agree that the council should develop that type of project? The only point at issue was for

the Minister to make his decision. Knowing the position and knowing that the matter had been discussed in July and October—and that the right hon. Gentleman himself had publicised it; I have the cuttings from the local Press here—I came to my decision. Week after week the matter had been discussed in the local Press. I came to what the right hon. Gentleman no doubt regards as a misguided decision—a decision that, for once, in Enfield they wanted a decision and not another inquiry.
So I made my decision, knowing fully that there was opposition but regarding the provision of council housing as of a higher priority than another year of delay, debate and expensive inquiry. Having told the right hon. Gentleman this, I hope that he will understand that it was a decision taken not by officials of my Ministry but by me—having looked at it and with no doubt whatever in my mind that there was nothing more, no facts which could be elicited, and knowing in my mind that the area of inquiry was unusually narrow, thanks to the Middlesex County Council's planning decisions. Since the issue was that narrow and since the matter had been debated so fully, the important thing was to get ahead with building houses and, for once, get a decision put into effect without years of delay.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned at nine minutes past Eleven o'clock.